64 Impala... Which?

[KWT]

Out of my own curiosity, and if it may help some other inquiring minds... Revell? Amt? Which is the better build and why?

I built the AMT version years ago and don't remember much about it... Recently Ive acquired versions of both.

[64SS350]

I believe the Revell kit to be more detailed, better chassis, opening trunk, etc.

[bisc63]

What he said. The AMT is a nice accurate body, but it shows its age in that it has a very simplified chassis plate that irks some builders, and it has the old typical convertible interior tub. Really comes down to what's important to you.  For a curbside build, the AMT holds its own, but for fully detailed inside and out, top to bottom, you'll like the Revell.

[NOBLNG]

I built the Revell Lowrider kit a while back. It is a very nice kit except for the horrible tail lights. Do all Revell versions have the same lights? From searching AMT builds on the forum, it looks like the tail lights are much better.

http://www.modelcarsmag.com/forums/topic/132921-64-chevy-not-too-low-rider/

 

Edited June 2, 2023 by NOBLNG

[KWT]

I've looked through that thread several times... definitely a nice save.

[atomicholiday]

Would it be worth pulling the best bits from both kits together?  Might be an interesting possibility.

[SfanGoch]

Roger that. Kitbashing to achieve desired results is a long-established method in this hobby.

[Fat Brian]

9 hours ago, atomicholiday said:

Would it be worth pulling the best bits from both kits together?  Might be an interesting possibility.

The only good parts from the AMT kit are some cool 409 valve covers. Unfortunately, you can't really use the rest of the engine in anything else because it has a hole through it and only half a transmission. 

[KWT]

Does anyone make better tail lights for the Revell?