1/25 Revell 1969 Chevelle SS 396

[Casey]

Due out in July 2020

 

[drodg]

To build a 69 without having to sand down the 68 side molding!  Lol!

[Monty]

I have no doubt that this will be an improvement over the AMT kit as far as things like chassis detail and tail light accuracy are concerned, but given the sheer number of AMT '69 Chevelle kits sold over the decades, I wonder if market saturation will limit the number of kits Revell will sell.

[Luc Janssens]

4 minutes ago, Monty said:

I have no doubt that this will be an improvement over the AMT kit as far as things like chassis detail and tail light accuracy are concerned, but given the sheer number of AMT '69 Chevelle kits sold over the decades, I wonder if market saturation will limit the number of kits Revell will sell.

That's why they released it as a '68 first, and maybe those who built that will venture into this release too. Too bad though they didn't do a Yenko version, which would set it more apart from the Round2 kit .

[Justin Porter]

24 minutes ago, Monty said:

I have no doubt that this will be an improvement over the AMT kit as far as things like chassis detail and tail light accuracy are concerned, but given the sheer number of AMT '69 Chevelle kits sold over the decades, I wonder if market saturation will limit the number of kits Revell will sell.

According to distributor Stevens International, current Round 2 MSRP on their AMT '69 Chevelle is $30.95 while Revell's MSRP on their upcoming in July '69 Chevelle is $26.95. 

True, decades of cheap secondhand AMT '69 Chevelles are out there, but new on the hobby shop shelf there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to buy the AMT '69 Chevelle. 

[Luc Janssens]

4 minutes ago, Justin Porter said:

According to distributor Stevens International, current Round 2 MSRP on their AMT '69 Chevelle is $30.95 while Revell's MSRP on their upcoming in July '69 Chevelle is $26.95. 

True, decades of cheap secondhand AMT '69 Chevelles are out there, but new on the hobby shop shelf there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to buy the AMT '69 Chevelle. 

And since modelers are cheapskates

 

[Justin Porter]

Just now, Luc Janssens said:

And since most auto modelers are cheapskates

 

Fixed it for you there, Luc.

[Luc Janssens]

1 minute ago, Justin Porter said:

Fixed it for you there, Luc.

 

[Rob Hall]

 

27 minutes ago, Luc Janssens said:

And since most US auto modelers are cheapskates

 

Fixed for ya... ...seems like it's a US phenomenon more than global.

Edited May 12, 2020 by Rob Hall

[Justin Porter]

2 minutes ago, Rob Hall said:

 

Fixed for ya... ...seems like it's a US phenomenon more than global.

Not going to argue there. It's definitely not the Tamiya F1 crowd that's at my counter simpering and stewing about drug and department store prices from 50 years ago, but I didn't want to be too pointed. 

[martinfan5]

9 minutes ago, Rob Hall said:

 

Fixed for ya... ...seems like it's a US phenomenon more than global.

I mean, its true.

[Snake45]

1 hour ago, Luc Janssens said:

Too bad though they didn't do a Yenko version, which would set it more apart from the Round2 kit .

All you need to convert it is the decals and wheels from the Revell '69 Yenko Camaro. Who here doesn't have several of those laying around? 

[GeeBee]

Hopefully they'll make it over this side of the pond, after building the '68, I really want to build a '69

[64Comet404]

I feel there is room in the marketplace for both the Revell and AMT kits. The Revell will be bought by people who want to make an accurate SS396, while the AMT can be used to make all those 'converted' SS cars, which helped to wipe out the '69 Malibu hardtop population ?

[mikemodeler]

4 hours ago, Snake45 said:

All you need to convert it is the decals and wheels from the Revell '69 Yenko Camaro. Who here doesn't have several of those laying around? 

Apparently no one as I had asked for a set and was willing to trade but got no responses after 100 views. No worries, got a sealed kit for $22 shipped to my house.

 

[Luc Janssens]

7 hours ago, GeeBee said:

Hopefully they'll make it over this side of the pond, after building the '68, I really want to build a '69

Indeed, cuz the bulk of the Revell USA kits which are sold here in the €20 ball park, come most likely from diverted shipments from when Revell USA was in limbo.

Edited May 13, 2020 by Luc Janssens

[drodg]

The AMT kit also comes in a convertible.   

[Brutalform]

I thought we would see some supplier with a pre sale going on. I remember ordering the 68 almost two months before it was released. 

[Casey]

[Brutalform]

Wow... those tail lights look so much better than the old AMT issues. Not perfect but better. Can’t wait to buy a couple of these. One to build stock, and the other to build as a bracket car. 

Edited June 30, 2020 by Brutalform

[Casey]

1 minute ago, Brutalform said:

Wow... those tail lights look so much better than the old AMT issues. Not perfect but better.

 

The gap between the quarter panel extension pieces and the top edge of the rear bumper looks excessive. I'm giving some leeway since it might be an early test shot, or the bumper might be mounted a bit low. Real car for comparison:

[Brutalform]

That’s what I was looking at, that larger gap. Still a big improvement over what’s out there now. 

[Brutalform]

I just added my email address to two hobby places so I can order as soon as the can be ordered. 

[Can-Con]

The bumper is about where it should be.

The crease along the side of the body is too high. It should be roughly at the top of the trim across the light lens, instead it's almost in the middle of the upper part of the lens. so,  looks like when they did the caps for the 1/4 panels they got the height from the crease to the bottom of the piece right ,, but it leaves a gap because the whole piece is moved up to accommodate the body crease.  

This also makes above the crease too short.  I noticed this a day or two ago while working on the '68 Beaumont conversion.  The upper tail light s on the Beaumont are fully above the side crease but with the crease being too high, I'm having a devil of a time trying to make the tail lights look right.

But easily doctored up when building a stock Chevelle by adding a bit of sheet plastic to the bottom of the 1/4 panel caps.  [I know,, we shouldn't have to on a new kit but there it is.]

Edited June 30, 2020 by Can-Con

[Brutalform]

10 hours ago, Can-Con said:

The bumper is about where it should be.

The crease along the side of the body is too high. It should be roughly at the top of the trim across the light lens, instead it's almost in the middle of the upper part of the lens. so,  looks like when they did the caps for the 1/4 panels they got the height from the crease to the bottom of the piece right ,, but it leaves a gap because the whole piece is moved up to accommodate the body crease.  

This also makes above the crease too short.  I noticed this a day or two ago while working on the '68 Beaumont conversion.  The upper tail light s on the Beaumont are fully above the side crease but with the crease being too high, I'm having a devil of a time trying to make the tail lights look right.

But easily doctored up when building a stock Chevelle by adding a bit of sheet plastic to the bottom of the 1/4 panel caps.  [I know,, we shouldn't have to on a new kit but there it is.]

That’s what I was thinking also. I always had to use a piece of styrene on one of the AMT roadrunner or GTX kits, only on one side of the rear bumper gap. These Chevelle lights look pretty good from the rear, but like you stated, the side view need a bit of attention.