Making AMT's original '57 Chevy more accurate

[Monty]

I like many aspects of AMT's original '57 Chevy, but I'd like to make my next one more a little more realistic.  To that end, one of the first things that came to mind was finding a chassis that didn't have molded-in exhaust or a metal axle through the front suspension.    

Has anyone here tried using Revell's Black Widow chassis with the AMT body and interior parts?  If so, any extensive modifications I'd have to make?  

If you've done this conversion, I'd love to see pics and/or a link to your WIP stuff. 

Bonus question:  Did we ever resolve the issue of which 1/25 AMT '57 Chevy had the more accurate body, the original or the 1990s issue?  

Show your work.

 

[BigTallDad]

Why not start with the AMT PROSHOP kit (#8455 with yellow box art) instead?

This is a skill-level 3 kit, comes with PE and plug wiring, no solid axles, etc. I've built it and was impressed with the detail.

http://www.modelcarsmag.com/forums/topic/101899-57-chevy-convertible/ 

[MrObsessive]

IMO, the jury's still out which '57 Chevy kit is better------the old or the new. There are aspects of both that don't sit right with me. For instance, on the old tooling I don't think AMT got the side trim quite right. It's sits too high/too close to the beltline. When you compare 1:1 pics to the old tooling's body, you'll see how the trim could stand to be a bit lower. 

On the new tooling, the trim looks perfectly fine to me, but one issue I have with it is that the wheelwells of the kit always seemed too big too me. Particularly in the quarter panel area, there should be a bit more real estate from the trailing edge of the rear wheelwell, back to the bumper. 

Some have argued in the past that the new tooling's body seemed "large" and bigger than 1/25 scale, while I've not noticed that issue as I've compared comparable cars to the body, it appears to be in scale to me. It's just those wheelwells that bug me. This may sound far-fetched, but if I ever build this car, I'd cut the wheelwells out of the old and new tooling's bodies, and put the old ones in the new ones place. At least the shape would be correct, but you're talking a LOT of work.

Revell's '57 Chevy Hardtop? Mehhh------something about the C pillar/rear window on that isn't right to me. New tool AMT's body captures that shape the best IMO.

Just my 2¢ worth............

Edited August 17, 2016 by MrObsessive

[Snake45]

I haven't tried it, but I don't see why the Revell Black Widow chassis couldn't be used--maybe with some minor adjustments--under the AMT HT body.

For that matter, the old Revell '57 chassis might be more detailed than the AMT, and should be adaptable too. (Most of that kit's problems are with body panel fit.)

As for interior, first off the Black Widow is a 2DS and the AMT '57 is a HT, so the top edge of the sidewalls would need to be cut down to match the HT body line. And isn't the Black Widow a 150, so therefore a different (cheaper) interior?

Revell did a '57 Bel Air 2DS too, which should have a correct Bel Air interior, but again the top edge of the side panels would have to be cut down.

[Monty]

IMO, the jury's still out which '57 Chevy kit is better------the old or the new. There are aspects of both that don't sit right with me. For instance, on the old tooling I don't think AMT got the side trim quite right. It's sits too high/too close to the beltline. When you compare 1:1 pics to the old tooling's body, you'll see how the trim could stand to be a bit lower. 

Some have argued in the past that the new tooling's body seemed "large" and bigger than 1/25 scale, while I've not noticed that issue as I've compared comparable cars to the body, it appears to be in scale to me. It's just those wheelwells that bug me. This may sound far-fetched, but if I ever build this car, I'd cut the wheelwells out of the old and new tooling's bodies, and put the old ones in the new ones place. At least the shape would be correct, but you're talking a LOT of work.

Revell's '57 Chevy Hardtop? Mehhh------something about the C pillar/rear window on that isn't right to me. New tool AMT's body captures that shape the best IMO.

Just my 2¢ worth............

The newer AMT kit always looked a little saftig (chunky), as the Germans say, kinda like the new Challengers vs the original '70.  I haven't done any measurements though. 

And I only want the Revell kit for its chassis (and maybe its engine). 

I haven't tried it, but I don't see why the Revell Black Widow chassis couldn't be used--maybe with some minor adjustments--under the AMT HT body.

For that matter, the old Revell '57 chassis might be more detailed than the AMT, and should be adaptable too. (Most of that kit's problems are with body panel fit.)

As for interior, first off the Black Widow is a 2DS and the AMT '57 is a HT, so the top edge of the sidewalls would need to be cut down to match the HT body line. And isn't the Black Widow a 150, so therefore a different (cheaper) interior?

Revell did a '57 Bel Air 2DS too, which should have a correct Bel Air interior, but again the top edge of the side panels would have to be cut down.

As I mentioned above, I planned on using the original AMT Bel Air interior, even if I have to cut out the sides and mount them to the top of the Revell chassis.  

[StevenGuthmiller]

I built the newer AMT kit with the opening trunk a few years ago, (same as the Proshop kit I believe, minus a few goodies)

As far as I can tell, it looks pretty accurate, but I'm no expert on '57 Chevies.

I did have a few assembly issues, but it turned out pretty nice.

 

Steve

 

[espo]

I personally prefer the later AMT '57 Bel Air. It is a little more of a challenge to build than the earlier version and is more accurate. There are definitely short comings as Bill Geary pointed out and can be seen in the picture of the model that Steven Guthmiller  built. If you study the rear "quarters" in the picture you can see that the rear wheel opening should be moved forward about two scale inches. Other than that it is still the better of the two.   

[Craig Irwin]

The worse thing I found wrong with the newer body is that it is pie shaped, it's too wide in the rear. The body is easily fixed because of the opening trunk, except for the roof which is then too wide for the corrected body. The BEST 57 Chevy hardtop would be the Revell 1/25 snap kit body and interior on one of the newer Revell 57 Chevy chassis and engine. That snapper has the BEST 57 Chevy 2 door hardtop body you can buy.

 

Edited August 18, 2016 by Craig Irwin

[Snake45]

The BEST 57 Chevy hardtop would be the Revell 1/25 snap kit body and interior on one of the newer Revell 57 Chevy chassis and engine. That snapper has the BEST 57 Chevy 2 door hardtop body you can buy.

 

Been playing with one of these off and on for a while (it's actually ready for paint, which I need to get around to) and I'd tend to agree with you. It's a VERY nice looking body. If you wanted it full-detail, you'd have to cut out the hood, but that's not a huge problem.

[Art Anderson]

The worse thing I found wrong with the newer body is that it is pie shaped, it's too wide in the rear. The body is easily fixed because of the opening trunk, except for the roof which is then too wide for the corrected body. The BEST 57 Chevy hardtop would be the Revell 1/25 snap kit body and interior on one of the newer Revell 57 Chevy chassis and engine. That snapper has the BEST 57 Chevy 2 door hardtop body you can buy.

 

One thing to bear in mind:  Many cars of the 50's and 60's were actually slightly wider at the rear than at the front, for two reasons:  1)  Stability at highway speeds--as having the body sides tapering ever so slightly outward toward the reat aided stabilty at highway speeds, and 2) this feature also greatly reduced "wind noise" by minimizing "the buffeting" of turbulent air against the side panes of the body and rear quarter panels--in  addition to minimizing the "oil can effect" which was the larger expanse of largly unsupoorted sheet metal from "drumming" due the eddying of air down the sides of the car at speed.

Art

[Longbox55]

Just checked the dimensions, on the 1:1, there is almost an inch and an eighth difference in width from the front to the back.

Here's the dimensions (see page 16) https://www.gmheritagecenter.com/docs/gm-heritage-archive/vehicle-information-kits/Chevrolet/1957-Chevrolet.pdf

[Craig Irwin]

One thing to bear in mind:  Many cars of the 50's and 60's were actually slightly wider at the rear than at the front, for two reasons:  1)  Stability at highway speeds--as having the body sides tapering ever so slightly outward toward the reat aided stabilty at highway speeds, and 2) this feature also greatly reduced "wind noise" by minimizing "the buffeting" of turbulent air against the side panes of the body and rear quarter panels--in  addition to minimizing the "oil can effect" which was the larger expanse of largly unsupoorted sheet metal from "drumming" due the eddying of air down the sides of the car at speed.

Art

I used a dial caliper, a calculator and a 1:1 57 Chevy. The new AMT body is too wide in the rear.

Edited August 18, 2016 by Craig Irwin

[Mike Chernecki]

I used a dial caliper, a calculator and a 1:1 57 Chevy. The new AMT body is too wide in the rear.

wow, how did you fit those dial calipers around the 1:1 57 chevy? Must be the extra large set.

I totally agree, the main reason I put mine back in the box when it orginally came out. Without a set of calipers looking down the body is noticably wedge shaped, too wide in the rear.

[Monty]

We seem to have strayed from what I was actually asking regarding the original AMT '57 Chevy.  That's the kit I have, and I want to make it more realistic via a chassis swap.  My main question was whether Revell's '57 Black Widow chassis would be an easy drop-in fix, or if I'd need to do a lot of modifications.  The AMT kit is a Bel Air, so I'll retain that interior.  

 

[Longbox55]

Getting back on track, I test fitted a Revell Bel Air sedan chassis (same as the Black Widow) to the AMT old tool body/interior tub. What I have found is that the frame horns and rear bumper mounts will need trimmed down, as the chassis is a bit long, and if the original AMT interior is used, it will definitely need to be cut down. Otherwise, it looks to line up very nicely under the AMT body. Eyeballing it, the wheelbase looks pretty good (I did not have nay suspension components installed), and the rear wheel wells seem to fit fine.

http://i281.photobucket.com/albums/kk203/Longbox55/100_3224_zpsjdc0jqps.jpg

http://i281.photobucket.com/albums/kk203/Longbox55/100_3225_zpsonhq9iko.jpg

http://i281.photobucket.com/albums/kk203/Longbox55/100_3226_zpseka3ynux.jpg

http://i281.photobucket.com/albums/kk203/Longbox55/100_3227_zpsbxf3qxyp.jpg

http://i281.photobucket.com/albums/kk203/Longbox55/100_3228_zpswara3wxn.jpg

 

 

[Craig Irwin]

I have put one under an AMT 55 sedan with little problems so it can be done. I suggest cutting the floors out of the AMT interior tub.