Revell or AMT '67 Pro Street Chevelle?

[crowe-t]

Which is the better kit, the Revell '67 Pro Street Chevelle or the AMT '67 Pro Street Chevelle?

Edited April 18, 2023 by crowe-t

[Mark]

Might depend on which stock Chevelle kit you prefer.  Both have offbeat/dated wheels: Revell has one-off modular wheels with slots shaped like Chevy "bowties", AMT has odd four-spoke modular wheels.  Revell kit has a custom taillight panel (stock part is not included, though one from the stock kit will fit).  The taillight panel could tip the scale towards AMT for some people.  

If you want a "parts kit", to swap the chassis under another midsize GM car, the AMT might be easier to work with as Revell's kit has the engine compartment molded as part of the body.  

[crowe-t]

Is either the Revell or AMT kit's body more accurate?

[Lone Wolf]

IMO, the not stock Revell tail-light panel kills it's "body design". This is where the AMT Chevelle is better. That said, I like the rear suspension better on the Revell 67 (it looks more realistic). The Revell's engine is "split down the center" (it's made in 2 halves), including the molded in oil pan, which I greatly dislike. True, the AMT engine is also split in the center, but has a separate oil pan. Here the AMT is better again. In the end, it's a series of different trade offs, boiling down to what you prefer better in the details.

Edited April 18, 2023 by Lone Wolf

[atomicholiday]

There is a pretty good video on YouTube that explains the differences.  I think it was done by Luka Cee.  Check it out.

[Mark]

The split oil pan used to be a bit of a bother for me, but no more. There are two ways to attack it. First step is to assemble the block halves with liquid cement. Make sure they are aligned; trim off the attachment pins if necessary. You can then wipe out the seam by either sanding and "painting over" with liquid styrene cement, or routing out the seam and filling with epoxy putty or two-part spot putty.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Steve H]

Hi Michael, when I built mine, I used most of the Revell kit, (body and chassis) but used the AMT rear bumper etc. The rear fascia required some minor adjustment to fit right. I liked the Revell rear suspension, and general fit of the chassis, and IIRC the tubs on the Revell allowed more room to lower it. As you can see below I changed things a wee bit. 

Cheers, Steve

[Can-Con]

On 4/17/2023 at 11:04 PM, crowe-t said:

Is either the Revell or AMT kit's body more accurate?

They're both pretty good but the front end of the AMT has a more pronounced "W" to it, the Revell is definitely more accurate there. 

The front of the AMT has always looked more "Buick" to me but some people can't see it or it doesn't matter to them.

[jaftygas]

I have to chime in very late to the party. 
they are both good kits. IMHO, the AMT is more toyish. I can’t stand the wheels in either kit. I took the whole revell kit and but it under the California Cruser series Chevelle wagon, and got some wide steel rallies to make a grocery getter.

[bobss396]

I built the Revell Maxx Rat kit some years ago and am building an AMT kit now. The Revell kit, the rear bumper and lights needed work to look right. The rear suspension was far more fiddly. I did like the engine and interior.

The AMT kit, I'm replacing the rear coils with some real springs. I have to relieve the chassis rails a but so the springs sit straight up and down. I generally make extra mounting tabs for the front and rear bumpers, I want them to go on easily at final assembly.

Both cars I have opened the trunks and added a fuel cell and battery. 

Oh on the AMT kit, this is big. The headers hang down too low. I had to take my finished headers and remove about 5/32" of drop from them. I scribed 2 lines on them first before I sawed them apart. Put them back together, much better.