Promo style chassises

[Greg Myers]

Yeah, I know, I've ranted about this before on the AMT '66 Mustang kit.

I've just gotten the bug  their '63 Corvette, finding it will do nicely for our club monthly theme build.

Thinking about how we judge, peoples choice and no picking up of the models, what you see is what you get. Unless its a gasser or something else with a noteworthy chassis, there's nothing to get excited about under there. "Keep moving folks. Nothing to see here." just the shinny parts and do dads on top.

Now what I'm really after here, is how many other older kits that keep getting reissued might have that promo type chassis?

I'm sure many newer people to the hobby might be a bit miffed to find this type chassis with little to no detail compared the to newer kits.

[Ace-Garageguy]

52 minutes ago, Greg Myers said:

...Now what I'm really after here, is how many other older kits that keep getting reissued might have that promo type chassis?

I'm sure many newer people to the hobby might be a bit miffed to find this type chassis with little to no detail compared the to newer kits.

Ah yes...there's the beauty of forums like this. Either search through the kit review section, or, assuming the search function you choose turns up zilch, ask about a specific model prior to purchase.

[StevenGuthmiller]

There's a ton of them!

Far too many to list.

If it's anything a little unusual, like a full sized Buick, Mercury, Pontiac, etc, from the 60s, chances are high that it will be a simple chassis plate.

Some of the most noteworthy kits that come to mind are perennial re-pops like the AMT '63 Ford Galaxie, '63 and '64 Chevy Impalas, '66 Thunderbird, '65 Continental, '65 Pontiac Bonneville, and on and on.

When I buy a kit, the chassis is honestly the absolute last thing I care about.

 

 

 

Steve

[Snake45]

1 hour ago, StevenGuthmiller said:

When I buy a kit, the chassis is honestly the absolute last thing I care about.

Steve

It's like I have a twin! 

[unclescott58]

59 minutes ago, Snake45 said:

It's like I have a twin! 

Triplets. I agree with both Steve and you. 

[ChrisBcritter]

Promo-style chassis do satisfy my innate urge to whittle; I've carved out a lot of rear springs and control arms plus dressed up lower front A-arms and tie rods just to give a better look to the underside than what AMT or Jo-Han gave us.

'65 Nova in progress:

 

'64 Caddy:

 

'61 Comet:

 

 

Edited December 23, 2018 by ChrisBcritter

[Richard Bartrop]

Those promo chassis were a big part of why I had almost zero interest in doing modern i.e. 60s and 70s cars when I was young.  Aside from them being almost painfully boring to put together, cars aren't just their outside.  All that stuff underneath he sheet metal is what gives them life and makes them interesting.  If all you have is the outside, you may as well just have a photo.

[StevenGuthmiller]

1 hour ago, Richard Bartrop said:

Those promo chassis were a big part of why I had almost zero interest in doing modern i.e. 60s and 70s cars when I was young.  Aside from them being almost painfully boring to put together, cars aren't just their outside.  All that stuff underneath he sheet metal is what gives them life and makes them interesting.  If all you have is the outside, you may as well just have a photo.

True, but if you are willing to limit your interests to what detailed chassis are available, you are missing out on a lot of great subject matter.

If the lack of chassis detail is dictating what you build, you probably weren't all that interested in the subject in the first place.

I'll take a one piece flat chassis on a '58 Ford Fairlane all day long if it's the only option.

And at the moment, it is.

In many cases, the chassis can always be swapped out if it suits you.

 

 

Steve

[Richard Bartrop]

7 minutes ago, StevenGuthmiller said:

If the lack of chassis detail is dictating what you build, you probably weren't all that interested in the subject in the first place.

 

Bingo.

And there are cars where the underpinnings are the most interesting thing about them

Not to mention, I probably have different ideas about what may or may not be great subject matter.

Edited December 22, 2018 by Richard Bartrop

[StevenGuthmiller]

13 minutes ago, Richard Bartrop said:

Not to mention, I probably have different ideas about what may or may not be great subject matter.

That's why I said, "you probably weren't all that interested in the subject in the first place."

I understand, everybody has their own interests.

All I'm saying is that in my case, there would be very little to build that interested me if I limited myself to only kits with detailed chassis.

I'll take Pontiac as an example.

Every Bonneville between 1958 and 1970 are available, as well as 1964, '65, '69, '70 and '71 Grand Prix and Tempests from 1961 to '64.

With the exception of the Trumpeter '60 Bonneville, none of them have a detailed chassis.

And you can virtually forget about marquis like Mercury, Lincoln, Oldsmobile, Buick and Cadillac, unless you're only interest is in muscle cars.

Not to mention a large portion of '60s Dodge, Plymouth & Chrysler cars

If you're interested in this type of car but shun them because of poorly detailed chassis, you're not going to be building much.

 

 

Steve

[disabled modeler]

11 hours ago, StevenGuthmiller said:

There's a ton of them!

Far too many to list.

If it's anything a little unusual, like a full sized Buick, Mercury, Pontiac, etc, from the 60s, chances are high that it will be a simple chassis plate.

Some of the most noteworthy kits that come to mind are perennial re-pops like the AMT '63 Ford Galaxie, '63 and '64 Chevy Impalas, '66 Thunderbird, '65 Continental, '65 Pontiac Bonneville, and on and on.

When I buy a kit, the chassis is honestly the absolute last thing I care about.

 

 

 

Steve

Same here... I get the ones I have because of the vehicle it is of.   Curbsides have never bothered me one bit..sometimes I actually prefer them since most of my builds are factory stock anyway.  yes there are times where a detailed chassis is better for the build but its never been an issue with me.

[TarheelRick]

14 hours ago, Greg Myers said:

I've just gotten the bug  their '63 Corvette, finding it will do nicely for our club monthly theme build.

On my looonnnggg list of "things to build" is a '63 Vette with a detailed chassis.  With that build in mind I have acquired a Revell '67 Roadster just for the chassis.  Initial tests seems to be a fairly simple swap, although there will be some cutting and fitting.  For all those Pontiacs mentioned many will work on the AMT '61 Catalina chassis and the Fords work well with the AMT '61 Starliner chassis; of course then you have a whole bunch of bodies laying around in the way.  All this being said, I grew up with the "promo" chassis kits, so I have an ample supply of flat black spray paint.  Most of my stuff is for me to look at and I do not really worry too much about the chassis.

[espo]

I have been building for a few years and we used to just accept the minimum chassis detailing since that was all we had. I remember well using my then new X-Acto knife to outline different features of the chassis and hand paint the exhaust and suspension. After a few years AMT started offering open hoods with little metal clips to hold them shut and what now seems ridiculous looking "engines". The point is you made do with what you had to work with and I for one was thankful for what we got. As more modelers started building cars the model companies started to put more effort into details beyond the body. I believe this had to also increase their production costs but I don't recall being put off by any price increases. Now we are at a point where the chassis and interior is almost the focal point in a build. Now when we want to build one of the reissues of a past subject and we get to the chassis why are we so disappointed ? You know that's what it is going to be. Why not use our new found tools and abilities and see just what we can do with what we have in the box. Think of it as a challenge. I have wimped out more than once and gutted a new model for the chassis for one of these kits, but maybe the next time I'll just look at the chassis and see just what I can do with it. My feeling is if you like the basic subject as a modeler the kit gives you the basics and it is up to me to make something of it.  

[oldcarfan]

There was a time when I would tear into a Fujimi Enthusiast kit or an old Revell kit. I loved all the little parts and all the tiny, delicate detail. Not anymore, now I like a nice simple kit that I can put together without too much hassle. Promo chassis are fine for these tired eyes!

[Eshaver]

14 hours ago, Snake45 said:

It's like I have a twin! 

I'm usually looking for specific subjects , in the case of my latest Diorama , an 1894 Queen Anne , the focus was on the building . I posed that place so as to depict Richmond Virginia in 1973. Because of the size of the building . the model cars all be stored within the place in the Attic when the model isn't on display . I have a couple of places where you might see the Powell house in 2019 

[SfanGoch]

Personally, what's under the body is just as important. I hate blobular slabs of plastic barely resembling a chassis/frame. Since I'm attempting to recreate a scale representation of the real thing, I don't mind doing extra work for the chassis.

'59-65/6 Caddys can use stretched Revellogram '59-'64 Impala chassis and, with some minor mods, the Eldorado kit chassis. With the exception of the front suspension for the '63-66 models (which needs to be scratched if you want 100% accurate), the Impala chassis work nicely.

'60-'64 Mopars (specifically Johan) can use any of the Lindberg Mopar chassis. Those can be got for relatively cheap without bodies or chrome, complete with chassis, suspension, interior tubs, etc. The interior tubs can be used to insert Johan tubs inside if one wishes to drop the floors so they don't appear so shallow. Just install the interior panels with the details facing out, adjust the height so the Johan tub fits when the door panels are extended downward and everything will be snug.

'65-'70 Mopars (once again, Johan kits benefit greatly from this), like old MPC kits, can use Revellogram '68/'69 Charger chassis and all of the suspension components. Depending whether you're sticking it under a B or C body, minor stretching/shortening may be required. AMT Roadrunner/GTX and Coronet chassis will also work.

 

Edited December 22, 2018 by SfanGoch

[Richard Bartrop]

And the argument "If you really wanted it, you could do X" sounds an awful lot like those health food nuts who go, "If you really cared about your body you'd make the effort" when you kick about an $8 loaf of organic bread.

If you really want to play that game, if you really wanted a model of something, you don't even need a kit.   There are some amazing scratchbuilders in the forum, and kudos to the ones who put in the effort, but it's just as true that most people don't have the the skills, references, time, or inclination for it, and that's fine.  There are people who don't want to mess around with building an all, and are happy with a prebuilt model.  It's all good.

 

[gtx6970]

14 hours ago, Snake45 said:

It's like I have a twin! 

5 hours ago, StevenGuthmiller said:

When I buy a kit, the chassis is honestly the absolute last thing I care about.

Steve

 

 

Make it triplets little brothers

 

 

The chassis detail is my  least concern, its not like I display my builds bottom side up.

[Greg Myers]

43 minutes ago, oldcarfan said:

There was a time when I would tear into a Fujimi Enthusiast kit or an old Revell kit. I loved all the little parts and all the tiny, delicate detail. Not anymore, now I like a nice simple kit that I can put together without too much hassle. Promo chassis are fine for these tired eyes!

I wonder if this is the direction more of us are traveling ?

I have a friend that builds aircraft in what we call a "Nostalgia style" that is as we would have as younger builders , not so much all the detail work but pretty much out of the box, probably easier to do with aircraft.

Can't see it, not to worry.

[Richard Bartrop]

Sometimes a model that you don't have to wrestle into submission is exactly what you want.   One of the reasons I'm a big fan of the recent Revell offerings is that Revell detail now comes with much better fit.  Sometimes nostalgia is highly overrated.

[Snake45]

50 minutes ago, Greg Myers said:

I have a friend that builds aircraft in what we call a "Nostalgia style" that is as we would have as younger builders , not so much all the detail work but pretty much out of the box, probably easier to do with aircraft.

Can't see it, not to worry.

Now you have two friends in that category. 

[StevenGuthmiller]

It all boils down to your personal expectations for a particular build in my opinion.

I'm a strong believer that every model I build doesn't have to be the same in detail as the last.

I'm perfectly happy to build a strictly curbside kit, and then a highly detailed one the next time, and anywhere in between.

I have no qualms with heavily detailing a body, interior and engine and then wimping out on the chassis, or any other combination that strikes me at the time.

There are usually alternatives available for a modified modern chassis and engines to go under a vintage kit if the urge strikes, but I don't ever want to paint myself into the corner of feeling like it is a necessity.

Model building is supposed to be fun, and an adventure.

Making unnecessary rules for yourself defeats the purpose.

Finding and building old annual kits is what keeps my passion about the hobby alive, & I'll be darned if I'm going to let a chassis plate destroy that passion.

 

 

Steve

 

 

[Snake45]

PREACH IT, BROTHER STEVEN! Can I get a AY-men from the choir? 

[Muncie]

1 hour ago, StevenGuthmiller said:

Model building is supposed to be fun, and an adventure.

Making unnecessary rules for yourself defeats the purpose.

 

and from the choir - AY-men

[Richard Bartrop]

Unnecessary rules are part of the fun.  It's those necessary ones that are a drag.

Edited December 22, 2018 by Richard Bartrop