GM 59 and 60 C pillars

[hedotwo]

To my eye the C pillars on 2 door HT Bonneville's, Impala's, Invicta's, and Olds 88/98's from both 1959 and 1960 are the same?  From pics on Google Image they sure seem to be, but was wondering if anyone here is sure.  I have a Johan 60 Olds 2dr that I need to replace the C pillar and was hoping to swap in an AMT GM 59 or 60 junkyard replacement.  I'm not even sure that would even work, but if not I'd just have to fab and replace the one I need.

Thank you

Edited March 26, 2021 by hedotwo

[Oldcarfan27]

GM used body skeletons on many of their cars that were used across all divisions. It was the exterior skins that made each car different. 

Yes, the roof is the same for all divisions. Usually, the glass is too.

[Tom Geiger]

A good guy to talk with would be Bill Geary. I know he put a newer roof on one of the older bodies.

I have a 59 Buick resin I have unfinished for years. The interior in the original issue Buick is more narrow than the Revell 59 Chevy. 

I’d say the manufacturer differences between models is more of an issue than GM

[MrObsessive]

To echo what's been said............yes, GM started body sharing division wide with the '59's. They took a page from Chrysler who did that with their '57's and it's the reason GM's '59's look the way they do.

In the model world however as Tom said, that's a whole 'nuther kettle of fish.

When I was in the beginning stages of building my '55 Ford, I used the main roof section from Lindberg's '53 Ford since in the 1:1 world, the '55's were a restyle of the original '52 Ford bodyshell.

Well, as you can see, the width of the Lindberg roof obviously was waaaay too narrow and it made me wonder was AMT's model too big for 1/25, or was Lindberg's too small?? Either which way, I had to widen the Lindberg roof for the AMT lower body to get things to look right.

In your case with the 1960 Olds C pillar, it's up to you which route you'd want to take as far as fixing it. Johan back in those days was pretty dang on the money when it came to body shapes and I'm not sure swapping in a Revell pillar from their '59 or '60 Chevy for example would work without some widening of the Revell pillar and then it having the strength for further sanding, movement, polishing for BMF after putting it in. It might be better to swap the entire roof with part of the tulip panel such as I did between those Chevy's simply because to my eyes, the '60 roof looked better than what Monogram originally did with their '59's.

This is an example that even between the same manufacturer, they can have different "views" of how to make something with basically the same car.

[MrObsessive]

2 hours ago, Tom Geiger said:

I have a 59 Buick resin I have unfinished for years. The interior in the original issue Buick is more narrow than the Revell 59 Chevy.

I don't know if you've ever seen this Tom, but years ago I built a Modelhaus '59 Buick resin and I hated the way shallow interior those kits were notorious for. Not to mention that the hardtop used the same interior as the convertible and as we know, there's a difference between the two beyond the widths of the rear seat.

I used the interior out of a beat up Monogram '59 Chevy kit and yes, it was some work to narrow the interior (rear shelf area) a bit to get it to fit inside the Buick body shell. ?

[hedotwo]

9 hours ago, Tom Geiger said:

I’d say the manufacturer differences between models is more of an issue than GM

I guess when I posted I'd already knew the answer about the GM roof lines being shared, and that there may be differences between Johan and AMT/SMP/Revell for kits from 59 and 60.  I probably should have asked specifically whether there might be differences between 59 and 60 GM big bodies.  If the 59 and 60 are the same that would give me more options to look for junk bodies to be a donor.  I hadn't really even considered the Revell Chevy kits at this point.   I have a built 59 Revell Chev that I can compare as best I can when I receive the Olds.

Thanks Tom

[hedotwo]

6 hours ago, MrObsessive said:

 

 and then it having the strength for further sanding, movement, polishing for BMF after putting it in.

I've repaired a few A pillars and you're right about this! 

Thanks Bill