Any reviews of AMT 1965 Pontiac 2+2?

[fseva]

Checked Google modelcarsmag.com, but could only find some stuff about a resin body. Any info regarding this kit would be welcome.

Edited July 11, 2015 by fseva

[mike 51]

It's a modified re-issue of the original 65 kit (from 1965 to be clear).

A typical AMT kit from that era.

Edited July 11, 2015 by mike 51

[gasman]

Doesn't this kit have an inaccurate body, too short iirc

[Chuck Most]

IIRC it uses a Bonneville chassis- which is 4" longer than a Catalina (upon which the 2+2 was based). The discrepancy will probably bother you more if you're familiar with the 1:1 car.

[mike 51]

Doesn't this kit have an inaccurate body, too short iirc

Or too long...maybe a Bonneville body when it should be a Catalina body? I can't remember exactly but too short doesn't sound right.

[59-Desoto]

I would fine a Bonneville or GP over the 2+2

[mike 51]

I would fine a Bonneville or GP over the 2+2

The 2+2 and the Grand Prix are the same size. Didn't AMT do a 65 GP too? if so was it on the Bonneville chassis/body too or was it correct? I can't remember.

[MrObsessive]

This kit was reviewed many years ago in SAE (Scale Auto Enthusiast), and IIRC the article was titled "Dog Days". The kit was absolutely CREAMED for being nowhere close to an accurate Pontiac 2+2! For starters, the body is too long as it's based on the old AMT '65 Bonneville, and they didn't even bother to at least retool the body and get rid of those fender skirts which I've never seen on a 1:1 2+2.

If accuracy is important to you, STAY AWAY from this kit! You're better off as Gene said finding a reissue Pontiac GP (correct wheelbase), hacking off the roof, and replacing it with the '66 Buick Wildcat. I picked the Buick as that has a much more accurate B-body hardtop shape than anything I know of out there, including the AMT '65 Bonnevilles (inaccurate side window shape on the one side).

Hope this helps!

Edited July 11, 2015 by MrObsessive

[MrObsessive]

The 2+2 and the Grand Prix are the same size. Didn't AMT do a 65 GP too? if so was it on the Bonneville chassis/body too or was it correct? I can't remember.

Indeed they did, and too my eyes, the GP's lower body has a much more accurate shape (length wise in the wheelbase and trunk) than the so-called 2+2 that they tried to foist on us.

Edit: GP's can still be found quite cheap on the 'Bay, and with a roof swap and some other bits and pieces, an accurate 2+2 can be made. IIRC, All American Models did one in resin years ago, but whenever those turn up on eBay-------they go for BIG $$$$$!!

Edited July 11, 2015 by MrObsessive

[Bob Ellis]

The only good thing about this kit is the 2+2 emblems and the seat patterns.

If you are careful, you can shorten it; frame and body.

The AMT '65 Grand Prix has the correct length body, but the roof is wrong, unless a convertible is your goal.

[mike 51]

But they (Pontiac) only made GP hardtops...so there goes that choice

Unless you meant a 2+2 'vert....then, of course, you were right....

Edited July 11, 2015 by mike 51

[Snake45]

If accuracy is important to you, STAY AWAY from this kit! You're better off as Gene said finding a reissue Pontiac GP (correct wheelbase), hacking off the roof, and replacing it with the '66 Buick Wildcat. I picked the Buick as that has a much more accurate B-body hardtop shape than anything I know of out there, including the AMT '65 Bonnevilles (inaccurate side window shape on the one side).

Far as I know, ALL the original AMT '65 and '66 GM fullsize bodies had this roof problem, including the two Wildcats I have. IIRC the right side is almost right, but the left side is completely whack. I believe Hasegawa even copied this bad roof on their '66 Bonneville (I'd have to take another look at mine, but I seem to remember it had it). Dunno if the MPC '66 Bonneville had that too--only one I've ever seen was my convertible. The Revell '65 and '66 Impalas seem to have a correctly shaped roof--or darn close, at any rate.

[mike 51]

Of course if he isn't really that familar with these cars...as I suspect is the case here, none of this would matter to him or even be noticed.

Edited July 12, 2015 by mike 51

[MrObsessive]

Hmmm......Snake I have the AMT '66 Widcat, and its roof looks fine to me. Maybe later issues had the roof shape get that much more distorted? In fact, the reason I bought the Wildcat kit years ago, is because I wanted to attempt this very conversion, but other models took precedence, and I never got around to it. I have the Hasegawa '66 Pontiac too, and yes, the driver's side is a little wonky. One could fix this with a little patience and skill------likewise the AMT '65 Poncho roof could be corrected with just a trifle of work.

I don't care for Revell's '65-'66 Chevy's at all! The roofs on them just look plain wrong to me---especially the '65.

BTW, the article written about the 2+2 was in the October 1995 issue of Scale Auto Enthusiast, and it was written by Larry Greenberg. Larry was non too kind about this kit as it was very woefully inaccurate------I thought that the fender skirts were molded in, but he wrote in the article that the builder for the box art added them.

VERY WRONG for a 2+2 as NONE of them ever had those!

The other two kits in that article-----the first attempt by Revell/Monogram at a '70 'Cuda (we all know about THAT one!), and Lindberg's '40 Ford.

[mike 51]

That issue of SAE was kinda disheartning....who would've guessed how much better (most of) the products would get.

[MrObsessive]

That issue of SAE was kinda disheartning....who would've guessed how much better (most of) the products would get.

Very true! But in reading the article (I was surprised I still had it), it seems as though Larry was coming from the viewpoint that he was tired of the "they'll never know the difference" mentality, that unfortunately, is still around to a slight degree when it comes to some kits.

I can't totally speak for Larry, but that's what I picked up on.

[mike 51]

The new F100s seem to reflect that attitude...

But to read comments by some here, they agree "it's good enough" and can become very,very upset if anyone disagrees.

My favorite excuse is it's too expensive to measure or research a product.....not from the companies, but from the consumers.

Edited July 12, 2015 by mike 51

[Guest]

I don't care for Revell's '65-'66 Chevy's at all! The roofs on them just look plain wrong to me---especially the '65.

I agree on the '65 roof. But, it's biggest problem was the rear window shape and trim that was above the opening and square corners. Disagree on the '66 Impala roof. It's right. Rear window and shape of the roof is right on. The '66 Impala is a car that I'm very familiar with. Had them in the family for several years and owned a Caprice for 24 years.

I bought a 2+2 some time ago with plans to build a custom out of it. But, never have looked at it that closely. Since I'll be chopping it up anyway, the too long wheelbase won't matter to me. Is it just the wheelbase that's too long or the entire body too long?

[MrObsessive]

It's a little bit of both it appears to me on the 2+2. Particularly the trunk area on the kit is too long as it should be shorter like the 1:1's------per the Catalina.

As far as Revell's '66 Impala, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, as I don't think the rear window is quite right on that one either. The corners are too sharp-----should be a bit more rounded like the 1:1's. Not a hard thing to fix, and it does look better than AMT's '65 Bonneville.

[Bob Ellis]

You can see here how much that must be cut. The 2+2 is a Catalina.

[Edsel-Dan]

I believe another error in the 2+2 was that they did not remove the BONNEVILLE

letters from the tail light panel.

I have the Ertl Blueprinter announcing the 2+2, and they stated it was based on an original

Kit/promo of the Catalina,and Would have the same chassis as the Grand Prix

They have since re-issued the Bonnevile.

Did they correctly restore it??

[Bob Ellis]

Daniel, I think the answer is halfway. The removed the Bonneville, but it doesn't say Pontiac and they kept the long Bonneville tail lights. The bumper is wrong as you say.

[Art Anderson]

As others have stated, the '65 Pontiac Catalina series was considerably shorter than the Bonneville, and on a shorter wheelbase:

Catalina 2+2 -- Overall length 217.6", wheelbase 121" (for all intents and purposes, 6" shorter than the Bonneville, wheelbase is 3" shorter than a Bonneville.)

Bonneville -- Overall length 221.7", wheelbase 124"

The front clips and body structures are identical, the difference in length is all in the truck, from the leading edge of the trunklid rearward.

I did the AAM Catalina 2+2 conversion on my own. I shortened the trunk 6 scale inches (.240" or 6mm, you can take your choice there, as the difference in metric and english measure isn't much more than the thickness of a razor saw cut!), cutting the rear of the car across just behind the rear wheel arches, and then cut each wheel arch away from the quarter panels as a rectangular piece, setting that aside. I then cut the necessary .240" section from the forward portion of the first saw cut.

Next, I lengthened the rectangular opening where the wheel arch/fender skirt portions were removed, forward by .120", which is 3" in 1/25 scale. I did cut a filler section from a second AMT 2+2 body shell, at the same point of the rearmost vertical cut I made when removing the wheel arch sections, for use as a filler panel to close in the gap after the kit body was glued back together.

Once the rear deck was back in place, now correctly shortened, I dressed down the part of that shape with some flat file work (carefully so as not to damage the trailing edge of that pseudo-fastback roof which came very close to correcting the area to the proper slope (Thank Heaven for those old, thick 3in1 Annual Series model car body shells!), only a slight bit of putty and block-sanding was required to finish this area, along with the tops of the rear quarters. Last, I made the needed "patch panels" cut from the second body, which put those in the correct position for a Catalina, added the necessary patch panels to the rear of this work--take care to make certain that the prominent "character line" on the body sides, and patch panel line up though! As I used gap-filling CA glue to join all the pieces back together only minimal putty was needed.

The toughest part of the whole thing would be the taillight panel, as the taillights on a Catalina are much shorter, side-to-side than those of the Bonneville, meaning I used the corresponding fluted panel from each kit to stretch that panel to its longer dimension. A friend of mine managed to create PONTIAC raised lettering and glued those letters in place on that panel. Other than that, shortening the taillight lenses was the simplest part of the whole thing. ( have NO idea whatsoever as to where he found the letters to spell out P-O-N-T-I-A-C though!)

The last thing I did was to "correct" the offending left side rear quarter window area, to at least make it match the right side, which to my eyes is pretty close to correct (the left side has too much of a "curved arc" to it).

When it was all done, I was more than happy to see that the reworked body fit to the Grand Prix chassis like a glove!

Hope this helps!

Art

Edited July 12, 2015 by Art Anderson

[fseva]

I would fine a Bonneville or GP over the 2+2

I would love to, but I found the 2+2 and need to decide whether to act on it or not...

[fseva]

This kit was reviewed many years ago in SAE (Scale Auto Enthusiast), and IIRC the article was titled "Dog Days". The kit was absolutely CREAMED for being nowhere close to an accurate Pontiac 2+2! For starters, the body is too long as it's based on the old AMT '65 Bonneville, and they didn't even bother to at least retool the body and get rid of those fender skirts which I've never seen on a 1:1 2+2.

If accuracy is important to you, STAY AWAY from this kit! You're better off as Gene said finding a reissue Pontiac GP (correct wheelbase), hacking off the roof, and replacing it with the '66 Buick Wildcat. I picked the Buick as that has a much more accurate B-body hardtop shape than anything I know of out there, including the AMT '65 Bonnevilles (inaccurate side window shape on the one side).

Hope this helps!

Yes, it helps, but is there any other reason why to avoid this kit, other than it being inaccurate?