Old Revell "H" part # kits

[Mark]

It's no walk in the park, but the '57 actually does go together.  I managed to get one together for a club challenge a couple of years ago.  I'd like to do a couple more: I've got an original issue, and I'd like to build the Ed Roth issue.  I've heard of people putting the Roth decals on other '57 hardtop kits, but to me they belong on that old Revell kit because that's the one that was created in the period when Roth was working with Revell.

The last couple of issues are actually pretty clean.  I'd intended to build the Roth issue for the challenge, but it wasn't out yet when we got started.  Tim's criticism still applies to most aspects of the kit, but the parts appear to be a bit cleaner in the Roth issue than in the late-Seventies one he used for the comparison.  Knowing what I know about these kits now, I'll be looking at vacuum forming new rear glass (and probably windshield) for any issue but the original.  I'd toss the sloppy door hinges and replace them with scratchbuilt ones.  That applies to all of the '55-'57 kits.

The '57 has the following alterations, among others: photoetch grille and some emblems (I think most are from the AMT Pro Shop kit, some might be MCG though), Monogram whitewall tires (the older ones, from the Predicta and some of the early 1/25 scale Fifties car kits), wheel covers from the newer Revell Bel Air sedan, engine parts from the newer Revell kit and the old AMT kit, and some scratchbuilt stuff like new interior door panels with separate arm rests and handles.  I crammed more work into this thing over one summer than I have done on anything in recent years.  I've got to polish a smudge on one door, and reshoot the roof because I polished through the paint in one spot.  It actually doesn't look too bad on the shelf though.

[Snake45]

Just for grins, here's the '56 I built back in 1969. A couple years ago I blew it apart, cleaned and repaired as necessary, and put it back together--a true survivor restoration. I originally had the 210 trim on it, which I haven't gotten around to putting back on it yet (it is VERY fiddly and fragile).

[1972coronet]

God only knows how many of the 1970s issues of the' 57 hardtop I attempted to build back in the 70s ... to no avail. I especially liked the Lowrider (moulded in pink metallic) , as it looked like the cars I'd see cruising on Whittier Blvd. The Astro Supremes,  organ pipe speakers, the stance ...a visual delight! 

I have the original 1962 issue of the 1956 F-100 which I got for next to nothing via eBay. Still getting my chops back , as I don't want to dig in until I'm confident in my skills.

Tim- I remember your 1985 article in SAE , comparing the 1953-1956 F-100 kits , and would like to read yout c.1983 1957 Chevy comparo. 

Edited September 4, 2016 by 1972coronet

[dodgefever]

I like the old Revell '57 and I think it's the best of the three. The '55 looks a bit flat fronted and the fit of the doors and body parts on the '56 was abysmal.  The biggest issue to me with the '57 is the clunky front bumper.  I''m inclined to dig one out of the stash and build is as a bumperless gasser, like the one I did 30 years ago and lost.

[Art Anderson]

Those mid-late 60's Revell kits, with their gobs of parts, opening everything, got a pretty bad rap when they were new--they were kits for grownups being pitched to kids who were the primary 1960's model car kit market--aged approximately 10-about 15 or 16.  As some others have stated, they CAN be built, but they do require more than the average amount of work to get them done well.

Art

[Mark]

God only knows how many of the 1970s issues of the' 57 hardtop I attempted to build back in the 70s ... to no avail. I especially liked the Lowrider (moulded in pink metallic) , as it looked like the cars I'd see cruising on Whittier Blvd. The Astro Supremes,  organ pipe speakers, the stance ...a visual delight! 

I have the original 1962 issue of the 1956 F-100 which I got for next to nothing via eBay. Still getting my chops back , as I don't want to dig in until I'm confident in my skills.

Tim- I remember your 1985 article in SAE , comparing the 1953-1956 F-100 kits , and would like to read yout c.1983 1957 Chevy comparo. 

I had TWO of the lowrider issue, sold both because I'll never get to them.  I'd like to do two or three more of the '57 kits, the reality is I might do one, possibly two.  Maybe I should do the one I want a little less first, then I might have the drive to do the third one.  Same goes for the Revell '53-'54 sedan; I might do one with the level of work that I feel like getting into, after which I'll probably forget about any others.  One of the '57 lowriders was molded in the usual pink, the other was lavender.  I've never seen another one like that before or since.

When you got the '56 pickup, were the red taillights still bagged with the tires?  I too got a cheap original on eBay, the tire/taillight bag was unfortunately still sealed leaving the taillights as two little clear red blobs.  Found a motherlode of parts boxes at a 1:1 car swap meet a couple of years ago, combed through tons of small stuff and found a bunch of goodies including two mint, unused, red '56 taillights.  All of the reissues have the taillights on the plated tree.

[1972coronet]

The tPackail light lenses are blobs ,but that's no biggie. Both engines were tire-burned ; no problem,  as I' m planning to use either a Parts Pack engine or the extra FE from the AMT. 1960 Ford .

[1972coronet]

Autocorrect AND tablet strike again !!

[disabled modeler]

I have the 56 kit its still unbuilt or close to it....I probably should just trade it off for something else I like more.

[Greg Myers]

Break that sucker out and give it a try, just think what a hero you'll be on this thread. 

[Snake45]

I have the 56 kit its still unbuilt or close to it....I probably should just trade it off for something else I like more.

I'd recommend FIRST trying both doors in the body. Do they both fit? If they do, do all the window frames and B-pillars align--that is, do they run straight up and down? If they do, then you might give it a go.  If not, don't waste your time with the wretched backbirth. Get a newer '56 Delray and get on with your life!

[disabled modeler]

I'd recommend FIRST trying both doors in the body. Do they both fit? If they do, do all the window frames and B-pillars align--that is, do they run straight up and down? If they do, then you might give it a go.  If not, don't waste your time with the wretched backbirth. Get a newer '56 Delray and get on with your life!

Snake... I have no intentions of building it...its just too early to fit my body styles that I like I am mostly a 60s-70s kid of guy. 

[Greg Myers]

Ever wonder why most of these kits had a 348 "W" motor as the second choice ? 

[Ace-Garageguy]

Ever wonder why most of these kits had a 348 "W" motor as the second choice ? 

Maybe because the more familiar "big block" wasn't introduced by Chebby until '65, so for a big-inch Chebby engine, the W would have been more common earlier. The 409 was Chebby's top-line engine from '61 to '65. The 348 hit the market in '58, and was getting swapped into a fair number of cars soon afterwards.

These engines made in the range of 250-425 HP in factory trim, pretty damm good for the period, but they were heavy compared to the smallblock, and ran out of breath around 6 grand, 6500. 425 bolt-in production-engine horsepower with real-car reliability is pretty impressive.

Edited September 5, 2016 by Ace-Garageguy

[mk11]

Here's a '55 I built at 14 in the 70s from the blue car box art kit. The Buick wheels came from the '56. Had no problems to speak of with it and am amazed at how well that testors rattle can black laid down and remains in good shape. Just picked up a builtup to use for restoration of a few missing/broken pieces.

 

mike

[John Goschke]

Being young and dumb at the time (1976) I was persuaded to build the '56 as a six cylinder BelAir in trade for a group of vintage builtups that included a '58 Ford. It wasn't fun, but I've still got the Ford!

However, if like the original poster, I wanted to build a '55 hardtop I'd  seek out the more recent Revell kit based on the Monogram 1/25 convertible kit and which (to add to the confusion) is also available under the Monogram label! While this kit has its own problems it's currently the easiest route to a nice '55 hardtop...

 

 

 

Edited September 6, 2016 by John Goschke

[unclescott58]

Beautiful '56 John. I very impressed.

[mk11]

X2... wow!

 

mike

[Mark]

My grandmother had a '56 Bel Air two-door sedan in that same blue/white color combo.  She probably got rid of it when I was five or six, so I wouldn't have known what it had under the hood.  When I get to mine, I hope I can get it to look half as good as this build!

[Ace-Garageguy]

Looking at these photos of some of the models built, I'm still of the opinion they do a pretty good job of capturing the looks and proportions of the real ones. I don't currently have any in stock, but I think I'd like to try a couple. I DID build the '57 when it was originally released, and though I recall it to be more complex than many other kits of the time, it was far from impossible, even for a young teen.

[Nova-ss]

These kits get a lot of bad press for being "fiddly" and "almost un-buildable".

Frankly, I disagree adamantly. The models are reasonably well-proportioned and look like what they're supposed to be.

They also take well-above-average skills to get the opening panels functioning and aligned correctly. Parts-count is high, and they can look spectacular if you take your time building them...if you have the skills and patience.

And you have to admit...they have some of the best box-art ever to grace a plastic kit.

I agree with Bill..there a blast,but the hinges suck.the rest of it I love.if your skills are not up to this yet.try a few of Revells other tri 5 kits.ones without opening doors and trunks.....good luck...Chris

[David G.]

I built several of these back in the 70's. Like most other things during those times, they were cheap and plentiful.

Although I think I did pretty well with them but my skills were limited by my age. Now that my age has increased greatly and my skills at least moderately, I'd like another crack at them.

David G.

[Greg Myers]

Here's a three way kit review,  http://blog.modeljunkyard.com/2011/04/08/54_55_and_56_chevy_revell_hotrod_series/

[Greg Myers]

So why the '54 instead of the '56 ?  

[Mark]

The '56 was out in the HOT ROD series around that time...that issue was the truly unbuildable one.  Maybe Revell had gotten feedback on it prior to issuing the three-car set.