'65 Chevelles: AMT vs Revell

[Snake45]

Bear with a few minutes, folks. I wrote this up last night but got repeated 404 errors when I tried to post. Same thing this morning. So I'll be trying to do it one section and one pic at a time. The whole story will be five paragraphs and four pictures. Hang on. 

Finally managed to lay hands on one of my remaining “holy grails,” an AMT '65 Chevelle Craftsman kit (used, but still nice). The body is primed (gray body in the pics below) but all the detail, such as the rear fender emblems, is still very sharp. Thought it would be interesting to compare it to the Revell.

The Revell (white body) is a nice kit, and many nice models have been built from it, but it's got a couple problems. The first is that the roof's not right. It's a bit subtle—I didn't notice it on my own, but once Ron Hamilton pointed it out, I see it clearly and can't un-see it. It's just not right. The drip molding is much too straight—it should have more arch in it. Similarly, the whole roof is a bit too flat. And the C-pillars are just a tiny bit too thin (just the opposite of the problem with the Polar Lights '64 GTO), and a little bit too upright. It looks like an 80-20 mashup of the roof shapes of the Malibu hardtop and the 300 2-door sedan. The rest of the body is fairly nice. There's a little difference in the wheel opening shapes, but it's not horrible.

The second problem with the Revell Chevelle is that it's a rare Z16 SS396. Only 201 of these were built, and in only three colors. The Z16s had a unique rear panel trim treatment not shared by either the Malibu or the 300, and it would be extremely difficult to either scratchbuild the rear panel or convert it from what Revell gives you to work with, if you want to build a far more common Malibu or Malibu SS hardtop (or convertible, for that matter). The AMT has the common Malibu rear panel right. Another difference is that the Revell Z16 body is missing the Malibu nameplate on the rear fenders (it's on the front fenders on Z16s), although the emblem is included as a decal in some issues of the Revell kit (the “Revelle Muscle” issue, for one).

The good news is that AMT kept both the rear fender emblems and the rear panel trim when they converted the Craftsman kit to the altered wheelbase funny car, so if you have one of those, or have the chance to acquire a built one at reasonable cost, it would be a fairly easy job to convert this body back to stock just by moving the rear wheel openings back where they belong. (This is NOT true of the dirt-track modified reissue, which has all the stock trim gone forever.) This could be done by using lower body panels from the Revell kit.

If doing that, you'd almost certainly want to go ahead and use the Revell kit's better chassis and interior as well. You also might want to use the Revell kit's grille with separate headlights (the AWB funny body has the lenses replaced with metal covers). Well, sadly, this isn't a drop-in fit. The bodies are very close in width, but the Revell is about .025” slimmer in the front than the AMT, which means you'd have to do some tweaking on the body or the grille or both to get them together.

Edited March 1, 2019 by Snake45

[Bob Ellis]

It took me 3 Ebay buys to get one presentable amt 1965 Chevelle SS

[Mark]

The bumpers from the AMT '65 El Camino, or the station wagon, will fit the AMT hardtop body also.

[Snake45]

2 hours ago, Mark said:

The bumpers from the AMT '65 El Camino, or the station wagon, will fit the AMT hardtop body also.

Yes, the last line of my review says use the grille and headlights from the Camino or station wagon, but when I tried to add that (about the 7th edit), I got a 404 error and then was locked out of the whole site for a couple hours. And it just refused again to let me add that last sentence. Ah shucks oh well. 

[ChrisBcritter]

Now let's discuss the sculpting on the quarter panel:

[MrObsessive]

Yup...........I noticed this many years ago not long after I got this kit that the drip rails were too flat. I'm not really seeing the overall 'flatness' of the roof crown however. Perhaps with the correction of the drip rails especially above the quarter windows, that'll fix that slight imperfection too. As far as the slant of the C pillars, you can add a bit of plastic to the leading edge of the pillar and fix the angle, but then there's the trailing edge to deal with and IMO fixing that is not for the faint of heart.

I have to say that the 'too flat' drip rails is a malady that also afflicts Monogram's '64 GTO. The hardtop on that never looked right to me, but it does look better than what Polar Lights '64 which to my eyes is woefully wrong.

I see what you mean here Chris.........some more definition is certainly needed here on the Revell body. The vertical crease just above the rear wheelwell seems to be very faint or non existent.

[MrObsessive]

I want to add that I had a run-in with an eBay seller that was trying to pass off a Revell Chevelle Z-16 model as an AMT. I could tell it was the Revell one the millisecond I saw the body as that flat drip rail was a dead giveaway. It bugged me to the point that I did write the seller to let him know that it was NOT an AMT Craftsman kit, but was a Revell one that he was selling. BTW, he did have a Craftsman one listed also and the description on that was right.

He wrote back to tell me that they're all under the same company and I wrote in return to say no they are all NOT! Revell has their own mold making and AMT at the time when that Craftsman kit was done had their own mold making/tooling.

What I got was an answer from him with two words.........CEASE CONTACT.

OK...........he did sell it BTW but I'm keeping an eye on the feedback to see what was said. He didn't get much for it so more than likely the buyer knew what it was, but that sure bugs the heck out of me when someone tries to pass something along that's not what they say and then when you point it out, they get an attitude about it.

Edited March 2, 2019 by MrObsessive

[unclescott58]

The lower rear quarter panel, between the wheel well and the bumper, looks better, more right, on the AMT body vs. the Revell. I'm not sure on which one is right? But, the AMT lower rear quarter panel looks more right, IMO. 

[Snake45]

FABULOUS discussion, everyone! This is EXACTLY why I took and posted these pics! Keep it up! 

You've all made excellent and valid points. I see what you're talking about! None of these things really bothers me as much as the roof, or the Z16-specific rear panel, but now that you've pointed them out, they're all areas that I'd take a closer look at--and I think I could fix them without too much trouble. 

How I wish some resin caster would offer a corrected roof and common Malibu or Malibu SS rear panel for this kit. I'd build a dozen of them if such were available! 

Again, thanks everyone! 

['70 Grande]

...

 really bothers me as much as the roof,

I love the 1:1, but could never get past that poorly-done Revell roofline either; hence, I've never bought the kit.

[Snake45]

7 hours ago, MrObsessive said:

As far as the slant of the C pillars, you can add a bit of plastic to the leading edge of the pillar and fix the angle, but then there's the trailing edge to deal with and IMO fixing that is not for the faint of heart.

Here's what might work: 

1. File off the drip rail where it comes down the C-pillar. 

2. Glue a piece of maybe .030" styrene to the forward edge of the C-pillar, standing a little proud. This would bring the C-pillar a little forward, and make a new drip rail at the same time. To see what I'm talking about, find my post down in Diecast on the Welly '65 GTO--I did the same thing there (after filing the C-pillar slant to a sharper angle, which won't be needed here). 

3. Now cut the rear panel of the roof, across the top and down the sides of the C-pillars, with a razor saw. DO NOT separate it at the bottom. With the cut made, open it up at the top to a wedge/pie cut. Maybe 1/16" at the top would do it, tapering to nothing at the bottom. Might need more, might need less. Now you can bend the top of the back panel forward and glue it back in place, giving you more angle to the whole rear of the roof. This will also bring the height of the rear of the roof down a little, which will help. In fact, it might not hurt to cut the roof rear panel slightly, too, right through the window. The width of a razor saw cut (the "kerf") might be enough to work. 

4. Remove the upper side parts of the drip rails, sand a little arc in the top edge of the window, then replace the drip rail with Evergreen strip plastic. 

There's another way to accomplish all this, much easier: 

1. Saw off whole roof, replace it with roof from reissued AMT '65 GTO. (Might be possible to use the roof from the dirt track "modfied stocker" version of the AMT '65 Chevelle, too, if you just happen to have one of those laying around.) 

[MrObsessive]

15 minutes ago, Snake45 said:

There's another way to accomplish all this, much easier: 

1. Saw off whole roof, replace it with roof from reissued AMT '65 GTO. (Might be possible to use the roof from the dirt track "modfied stocker" version of the AMT '65 Chevelle, too, if you just happen to have one of those laying around.) 

Now this is a more palatable idea! What you mentioned earlier for me is doable, but for those that aren't as skilled it might be a VERY daunting task.

Funny you mentioned about the GTO separate top..........not long ago I came across one of these on eBay. The reason I wanted it was the roofline is VERY close to what GM used for their B Body 1965-'66 four door hardtops. I have a Hasegawa '66 Bonneville I'd LOVE to turn into a four door and that roof looks as close to anything I've seen. With some tweaking I can turn that model into a never made four door.

The hardest thing was finding a '66 dash, but I've got one of those too now. The seats I can scratchbuild the patterns needed for that.

[Snake45]

11 minutes ago, MrObsessive said:

Funny you mentioned about the GTO separate top..........not long ago I came across one of these on eBay. The reason I wanted it was the roofline is VERY close to what GM used for their B Body 1965-'66 four door hardtops. I have a Hasegawa '66 Bonneville I'd LOVE to turn into a four door and that roof looks as close to anything I've seen. With some tweaking I can turn that model into a never made four door.

A while back I wanted to do a '65 or '66 Chevy Biscayne 2DS. I bought a Revell convertible kit with the idea of modifying the up-top into that roof. It looks do-able. And I think it might be even closer to the 4-door shape than your GTO roof, but I'd have to do a lot more research to say for sure. 

Funny we can't get an accurate roof on a '64-'65 GM A-body kit today. Back in the day, AMT did the '64 Tempest convertible and '64 GTO hardtop; these molds became the '65 GTO kit (still available) with separate roof. They did a '64 F-85/Cutlass, which became a topless AWB funny car. And they did the '64 Chevelle, which became the '65, which became an AWB funny car, which finally ended up as the modified dirt tracker. So they did that roof right four times, and all we have available today is the '65 GTO separate top and the modified dirt tracker top. It is so very sad. 

[Classicgas]

The Revell kit, It's close enough for me. Both look nice.

Edited March 2, 2019 by Classicgas

[Jay t.]

Why is it the bodies made in the 60’s are more accurate than the ones made now?  

[Snake45]

46 minutes ago, Jay t. said:

Why is it the bodies made in the 60’s are more accurate than the ones made now?  

I dunno, but it's almost always true, isn't it? I can only think of a couple exceptions. 

[Jay t.]

AMT and Johan seemed to be the most accurate.

 

[1972coronet]

"Palmer"

[Jay t.]

Palmer had cool box art

[Repstock]

On 3/2/2019 at 12:53 PM, MrObsessive said:

Funny you mentioned about the GTO separate top..........not long ago I came across one of these on eBay. The reason I wanted it was the roofline is VERY close to what GM used for their B Body 1965-'66 four door hardtops. I have a Hasegawa '66 Bonneville I'd LOVE to turn into a four door and that roof looks as close to anything I've seen. With some tweaking I can turn that model into a never made four door.

A friend of mine has made a 4 door '66 Bonneville using the 1/24 '64 GTO top. Ended up looking real nice.

[MrObsessive]

1 hour ago, Repstock said:

A friend of mine has made a 4 door '66 Bonneville using the 1/24 '64 GTO top. Ended up looking real nice.

That's a thought and may be a better idea than the top I have.

Since it's supposed to be '1/24' (actually a repop of the 1/25 MPC body) it would be easier to shrink this down, than to try stretching it out.

6 hours ago, Jay t. said:

Why is it the bodies made in the 60’s are more accurate than the ones made now?  

Because more than likely the tool makers had a much more critical eye than those of today. Not to mention since most were to be promos of some sort, they had better get it as accurate as possible if they wanted the blessing of the manufacturer to have them given to their customers/prospective new car buyers.

[Repstock]

34 minutes ago, MrObsessive said:

That's a thought and may be a better idea than the top I have.

Since it's supposed to be '1/24' (actually a repop of the 1/25 MPC body) it would be easier to shrink this down, than to try stretching it out.

This is the kit he used. The top fit well.

[Snake45]

52 minutes ago, MrObsessive said:

Since it's supposed to be '1/24' (actually a repop of the 1/25 MPC body) it would be easier to shrink this down, than to try stretching it out.

I have both and can assure you the Hasegawa '66 Bonneville is NOT a repop or copy of the MPC. Very close, almost certainly "inspired by," but definitely not a copy. 

[MrObsessive]

31 minutes ago, Repstock said:

This is the kit he used. The top fit well.

Hmmm...........that's the very car I used to make my stillborn '64 convertible with the working top frame. I ended up using the top for a convertible up-top as the working one was a no go.

15 minutes ago, Snake45 said:

I have both and can assure you the Hasegawa '66 Bonneville is NOT a repop or copy of the MPC. Very close, almost certainly "inspired by," but definitely not a copy. 

I could have swore I heard that what Hasegawa used was a slot car body from MPC to make those curbsides. I have both of those also (a built original '66 sitting waiting to be redone), and they look for all the world identical to me save for the closed hood. Nothing else is the same though especially the interior as I had to find a dash off the 'Bay. The one in the kit I'm not sure what that supposed to represent.

They sure did a good job of making that body since it looks VERY good! I sure wish the other makers did as good a job on a consistent basis.

[Ron Hamilton]

I just saw this discussion this evening, and since my first car was a 65 Chevelle, I have a lot of interest in this one. I bought several Revell '65 Malibu kits when they first came out, but I was dissatisfied with the roof. I built one as a phantom Z16 convertible instead.

I purchased a used craftsman 65 Chevelle Malibu SS, which I plan to use as a guide to do an accurate 65 Malibu SS 2Door hardtop, utilizing the excellent, comprehensive, Model Car Garage 65 Malibu Photoetched set, which by the way was used on the above model. The roof on that Revell 65 does not look as if it will be too difficult to correct to my satisfaction. 

I have an extra 66 MPC 66 Bonneville that can be converted into a 4 door hardtop, but I may decide to go in a different idea on that as I have all of the 65 and 66 GM full size models to choose from for such a project in the future.

Edited March 4, 2019 by Ron Hamilton