Jump to content
Model Cars Magazine Forum

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Looks like a winner, I'll have to compare it to the AMT kit when it arrives. Thanks ;) These might be a little more my style. 1123.jpg Something "old school" c961bbf07c34bce9f8abfec602977648.jpg

Edited by Greg Myers
Posted (edited)

One of their die-cast (American Graffitti) to plastic conversions. Slab sided, opening trunk (to show off the lowrider hydraulics in certain issues). Very good engine and chassis. Separate chrome trim on body.

Edited by Brett Barrow
Posted

Don't bother with those Pegasus wheels, they don't look enough like Astro Supremes and they're oversize for 1/25. The chrome reverse ones are worse, they just look toy-like.

Posted

I bought it basically for the 409, I think I read somewhere here once that it was the best ever version of the engine so that's good enuff for me.

jb

Posted (edited)

I have not built any of them but got both the AMT and Revell kits and from what I see the Revell one looks very good. I like the fact that it has separate chrometrim on the sides. The AMT kit is also very good when you consider the age of the kit but I'm guessing that the latest issues will have rather worn molds and therefore a lot of flash and moldlines. I got an issue from the 70s (not sure what year) that has the number T273 and a blue custom on the box art and it does look like it had a good mold with very little flash and moldlines.

Edited by Atmobil
Posted

I've got this one.

I know it has It has opening doors and I think the trunk opens as well

No, just the hood and doors open. The Revell kit has opening hood and trunk, but not doors.

Posted

Don't bother with those Pegasus wheels, they don't look enough like Astro Supremes and they're oversize for 1/25. The chrome reverse ones are worse, they just look toy-like.

IDK they look good to me, decent representation too large though, more like a 16-17" rather than 14-15"

I thought they looked fine next to me 1:1s...

DSCF6936.jpg

DSCF6977.jpg

Posted

I bought it basically for the 409, I think I read somewhere here once that it was the best ever version of the engine so that's good enuff for me.

jb

Actually it's a 348. It was also used in trucks. Chevy later used the block in '61 to make the 409.

Posted

How close can the Revell '58 be built to "stock"? Both Richard and Steve's look somewhat stock. But, are they (especially Steve's)? Can they be built without all the lowrider stuff in the trunk and the bottom of the car? Other wise I'll stick with my AMT '58.

Scott

Posted (edited)

Scott...the Revell Impala (at least the version in my kit stash) can be built entirely stock.

Also, in my view the 348 engine in this kit is probably the best 348 in 1/25th scale these days....particularly if you want to build it with some mild period-correct aftermarket equipment (which is included as a build option).

Cheers...TIM

Edited by tim boyd
Posted

Scott...the Revell Impala (at least the version in my kit stash) can be built entirely stock.

Also, in my view the 348 engine in this kit is probably the best 348 in 1/25th scale these days....particularly if you want to build it with some mild period-correct aftermarket equipment (which is included as a build option).

Cheers...TIM

Thanks Tim. I guess I need to pick one up to build to match my AMT '58 then. I've always liked the looks of the '58 Chev. In '57 give me a Ford. But '58? It's Chevy in the low price three for me.

Scott

Posted

How close can the Revell '58 be built to "stock"? Both Richard and Steve's look somewhat stock. But, are they (especially Steve's)? Can they be built without all the lowrider stuff in the trunk and the bottom of the car? Other wise I'll stick with my AMT '58.

Scott

Yes, they can be built completely stock.

I added the included cruiser skirts & continental kit to mine, but it does come with a plain rear bumper as well.

Steve

Posted

whats the diff between a 348 and a 409? pretty much nothing external, correct?

they were both overweight boat anchors but they look kool with those W valve covers IMO

jb

Posted

whats the diff between a 348 and a 409? pretty much nothing external, correct?

they were both overweight boat anchors but they look kool with those W valve covers IMO

jb

What's wrong with the 348 and 409? Why do you refer to them as boat anchors? They may not have the buildup potential of the 396/427/454, or even the small block. But they saw plenty of action in their day. And did okay. I don't know why people bad mouth the 348 and 409. Or refer to them as truck engines, as they appeared in cars at the same time as trucks. Given a choice of a 409 or a 396 in an Impala in '65, I'd take the 396. But, I wouldn't have turn my nose up at a 409.

Scott

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...