Building the 'Icon' - a 57 Chevy in Sierra Gold

[beeRS]

For me, the 1957 Chevy is the iconic American classic. Maybe a '59 Cadillac comes a close second. As a kid growing up in 1970s England, you don't get to see many American cars, but a 57 Chevy still hit my radar. A friend at school swapped me a Matchbox diecast with a flip front and that image of an American Classic was firmly cemented in my head. I don't have that Matchbox toy anymore, but here's a pic I found on the internet.

I have built the Monogram 1/24 '57 many years ago and I also have the old 1/25 AMT in my stash. However, I feel that the new AMT kit is far better. I believe this kit is the same as AMT's ProShop one? This one comes with a PE set and some BMF.

First off, I'll share some pics of the kit, for anyone who's not familiar with it.

There'll be no keeping you in suspense about the colour choice. I'll tell you now that it's going to be Sierra Gold with white (cream) roof. I'm not fixated about getting the exact same factory paint. When it comes to modelling, I feel that the change in indoor-vs-outdoor lighting can make the same colour look different anyway. If its a close enough match to my eye, it will do. So to save a few pennies, I'm mixing GT40 Honey Gold and Ford GT Liquid Red from Zero paints in a 60:40 ratio. I think it looks about right.

Thanks for watching and I'll post some progress soon.

Edited May 7, 2022 by beeRS

[bisc63]

Nice color choice, and your mix does indeed look close enough! You are correct about that being the same as the ProShop boxing of that kit. Sort of surprised you aren't doing a color copy of that Matchbox car; it would make a cool mild custom! Maybe tone down the hood scoop a bit...

Edited May 8, 2022 by bisc63
added info

[Spottedlaurel]

I'm not familiar with this kit, certainly plenty of parts and detail there.

Good luck with it Sonny.

[espo]

Your kit is arguably the best '57 Chevrolet kit and the color is one of the most popular for them at that time. I have built a couple and I always pickup another whenever I see them at a swap meet. The parts fit is very good, and it will not fight you on the build. Look forward to watching this build. 

[Bob Ellis]

2 hours ago, espo said:

Your kit is arguably the best '57 Chevrolet kit and the color is one of the most popular for them at that time. I have built a couple and I always pickup another whenever I see them at a swap meet. The parts fit is very good, and it will not fight you on the build. Look forward to watching this build. 

I built a 57 chevy in the '70s in this color. Very classic.

[TransAmMike]

I second Davids comment about this kit.  The best of the '57's.  Do it up right Sonny!!

[Bills72sj]

Nice plan of action. Following.

[David G.]

Beautiful color choice, it looks like you nailed the mix on it.

David G.

[beeRS]

On 5/8/2022 at 7:49 AM, bisc63 said:

Nice color choice, and your mix does indeed look close enough! You are correct about that being the same as the ProShop boxing of that kit. Sort of surprised you aren't doing a color copy of that Matchbox car; it would make a cool mild custom! Maybe tone down the hood scoop a bit...

Funny, that idea did cross my mind. Maybe next time. This probably won't be my last 57 Chevy build.

[MeatMan]

Cool!

[slusher]

Great color choice!

[beeRS]

A long overdue progress report on my project '57!

First off was a mock up to check ride height and stance. Out of the box, I think this sits a little high. Looking at pictures of 1:1 cars, its hard to know what stock height should really look like. some cars are modified and others may have 60+ year old saggy suspension. 

I also noticed something odd about the way the wheels and tyres fit together. Below, on the left is the kit tyre. On the right is a Satco tyre that I've had sat in my box of spare parts for near 30 years. I think I'll put them to good use here! The wheels seem to sit better inside the tyre, whereas on the kit tyres they sit proud. Its the same on the inside of the wheel.

Looking at the way the rear suspension goes together, the kit has the leaf springs attach directly to the floor pan. I'm sure they should attach to the chassis. I want to build the rolling chassis completely separate to the body, so this was up for a little fix.

I looked up some images of 1:1 rear spring shackles for a '57 and knocked these up from plastic sheet. This won't be 100% accurate, but at least better than the kit and it will allow me to attach the leaf springs directly to that chassis.

I cut the ends off the leaf springs and made new ends that depict one end rolled. One end is rolled upwards, and the other end rolled down. 

I'm lowering the front end by changing the angle of the A-arms slightly.

A little cheat - I've added a small shim to move the upper arm upwards.

I think I have the stance just right now. From what I've seen on 1:1 cars the top of the front wheel arch seems to be in line with the top of the white wall, and at the rear the top of the wheel arch seems to be in line with the top of the wheel. Combined with the Satco tyres I think this is sitting just right now. Let me know what you think.

The rolling chassis.

[Bainford]

Agreed. It sits perfectly.

[espo]

I was pleasantly surprised to see this back on the work bench. You mentioned the rear leaf spring mounting points. The kits leaf springs have the frame mounting points on the ends. The very flat looking ends represent the hangers that were attached to the side of the frame on the 1:1. The kit has some very slight indentations to represent the mounting points. Your approach looks very convincing. I don't know how much attention you're going to do with the trunk area, but the mounting for the rear shocks will show inside the trunk if built as the instructions show. The upper shock mount in the kit is a hole that goes all the way thru the floor area. This will show in the trunk area if you're displaying the trunk open. I suggest shortening the upper mounting peg on the shock and smoothing over the floor area under the rear window so that the shock mounting will not show. The 1:1's had the shocks mounted to the trunk floor with no frame support when new. When we would modify the originals, it was common to run a small diameter support cross member between the frame rails and then mount the shocks to that. Driven hard it was not uncommon to bend the upper mountings because of the lack of support and with age and undercarriage rusting this part of the floor would tend to rust out as well. Look forward to following your build on this. 

[TransAmMike]

Glad to see you're back on this buid Sonny. About the stance, I have 2 vintage pics of 2 of my Dads' unmodified '57 Bel Air 2-door hardtops and the stance on both is level.  

[bisc63]

3 hours ago, TransAmMike said:

About the stance, I have 2 vintage pics of 2 of my Dads' unmodified '57 Bel Air 2-door hardtops and the stance on both is level.  

Agreed. Look at period advertisements, and now readily available old commercial videos, and you'll see that these old cars rode higher than we've come to expect. Back then, not all roads were paved, and many cars lived most of their lives on less than perfect graveled roads. AMT did a good job getting the stock stance right, I think your front end drop was completely unnecessary for a stock appearance. Rocker panels were generally parallel to the ground.

[TransAmMike]

7 minutes ago, bisc63 said:

Agreed. Look at period advertisements, and now readily available old commercial videos, and you'll see that these old cars rode higher than we've come to expect. Back then, not all roads were paved, and many cars lived most of their lives on less than perfect graveled roads. AMT did a good job getting the stock stance right, I think your front end drop was completely unnecessary for a stock appearance. Rocker panels were generally parallel to the ground.

Ditto on your last sentence. 

[beeRS]

On 6/30/2022 at 11:31 PM, bisc63 said:

Agreed. Look at period advertisements, and now readily available old commercial videos, and you'll see that these old cars rode higher than we've come to expect. Back then, not all roads were paved, and many cars lived most of their lives on less than perfect graveled roads. AMT did a good job getting the stock stance right, I think your front end drop was completely unnecessary for a stock appearance. Rocker panels were generally parallel to the ground.

Agreed Rusty. I think the front needs to come up level - same as the back.

On 6/30/2022 at 4:51 PM, espo said:

I was pleasantly surprised to see this back on the work bench. You mentioned the rear leaf spring mounting points. The kits leaf springs have the frame mounting points on the ends. The very flat looking ends represent the hangers that were attached to the side of the frame on the 1:1. The kit has some very slight indentations to represent the mounting points. Your approach looks very convincing. I don't know how much attention you're going to do with the trunk area, but the mounting for the rear shocks will show inside the trunk if built as the instructions show. The upper shock mount in the kit is a hole that goes all the way thru the floor area. This will show in the trunk area if you're displaying the trunk open. I suggest shortening the upper mounting peg on the shock and smoothing over the floor area under the rear window so that the shock mounting will not show. The 1:1's had the shocks mounted to the trunk floor with no frame support when new. When we would modify the originals, it was common to run a small diameter support cross member between the frame rails and then mount the shocks to that. Driven hard it was not uncommon to bend the upper mountings because of the lack of support and with age and undercarriage rusting this part of the floor would tend to rust out as well. Look forward to following your build on this. 

Thanks for the advance warning Dave. I was thinking I might make a boot mat that would cover up the shock tops. Otherwise it'll be the smoothed over approach.

 

[beeRS]

Just a quick update. I've made a little progress with the boot lid (trunk?). For some reason, it would not seat flush with the rear quarters. I shaved a little material all around to achieve a better fit.

 

The AMT hinges appear to work in the open or closed position, but not in-between. They are not a functioning hinge.

 

I decided to try and make a working hinge.

I'm pretty pleased with how that turned out. Now I have a trunk that swings open nicely!

[espo]

Your hinges are much improved over what the kit provided. 

[Rgjenks]

I am a new adult builder (retired, looking for a hobby).   I just did a Revel kit and it had clear instructions to assist in the paint colours.  I just bought the Atlantis '57 Chevy Bel Air kit, and see no painting guide.  Do I just guess at the colour for the engine parts etc. The box suggested colours needed but no idea how to apply.   Help.

[ModelcarJR]

Nice job on the hinges, Sonny!  I wanted to help with the ride height and hope you don't mind.  I built this same kit a few months ago using Tamiya Orange Metallic over silver.  I didn't modify anything on the chassis and the  tires may be from the parts box but are the right size.  The bottom of the chrome rocker at the front of the car is about 1/2" from the ground and the rocker at the rear  in front of the back wheel is about 5/8" from the ground.  This compares favorably with my 1:1 in the garage which is 10" at the front wheel and 12" at the back wheel. I haven't figured out if that works out scale-wise but both demonstrate a slight rake that really looks like its level. Good luck with your build! ?

 

 

[beeRS]

6 hours ago, Rgjenks said:

I am a new adult builder (retired, looking for a hobby).   I just did a Revel kit and it had clear instructions to assist in the paint colours.  I just bought the Atlantis '57 Chevy Bel Air kit, and see no painting guide.  Do I just guess at the colour for the engine parts etc. The box suggested colours needed but no idea how to apply.   Help.

Hi Ron, I'm sure different modellers have different approaches, but I seldom use the colours suggested on a kit instruction sheet (if shown). I prefer to look at google images of 1:1 cars. Kit instructions can sometimes be wrong with regards to colour and sometimes limited to just colours available from one particular paint brand.

6 hours ago, ModelcarJR said:

Nice job on the hinges, Sonny!  I wanted to help with the ride height and hope you don't mind.  I built this same kit a few months ago using Tamiya Orange Metallic over silver.  I didn't modify anything on the chassis and the  tires may be from the parts box but are the right size.  The bottom of the chrome rocker at the front of the car is about 1/2" from the ground and the rocker at the rear  in front of the back wheel is about 5/8" from the ground.  This compares favorably with my 1:1 in the garage which is 10" at the front wheel and 12" at the back wheel. I haven't figured out if that works out scale-wise but both demonstrate a slight rake that really looks like its level. Good luck with your build! ?

 

 

Thanks John for sharing those real world measurements. Both of your '57s look stunning. The Tamiya Orange Metallic really suits. Is that a '65 Mustang I see in the garage too? 

[ModelcarJR]

Close, its my wife's 66 Mustang.  She grew up in a Ford household and I grew up in a Chevy household.  I thought she had a 66 fastback when she was growing up but it was actually a 67.  I couldn't find a fastback reasonably priced for her 50th birthday so I got this 66 coupe.  I never had a 57 growing up but had a 58, 61, and 63 I always wanted a 57 and rebuilt this one with lots of purchased help over 3 years in the early 90s. We used to go to some Saturday night old car meets but its a lot of work. Now, its a lot of work just to keep them running.  I wanted to get them out and wash them but with temps in the 100s I'll have to wait for better days.  Thanks for asking! 

[David G.]

Nice work on the hinges!

It's great to see this build back in play.

David G.