GMP440 Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 Who here on the message board corrected the drooping rear section on the Revell 67 Coronet body? I'm trying to do this, just don't know where I need to make the necessary cuts to get the rear quarter section up and straight so the body looks correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOBLNG Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 I don’t have one so I’m not familiar with the issue…but those cars had a real classic look to them.😎 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike 1017 Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 Looks good to me. Post a picture of your kit and let's compare. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenGuthmiller Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 (edited) Looks to me that if you really want to go down this rabbit hole, you've got a lot of work ahead of you. Along with the drooping rear quarters, just at a quick glance, it appears to me that the front quarter also has a slight droop, not to mention that it appears that both the front and rear wheel openings are shaped wrong. Good luck with that! Edit: The side scoops appear to be too short and dumpy on the kit body as well. Steve Edited January 17 by StevenGuthmiller 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat Brian Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 Check out this thread by Bill Geary, he seems to have found and 3d printed a body that looks superior to the Revell offering. https://www.modelcarsmag.com/forums/topic/179346-3d-printed-1967-dodge-coronet-440/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drodg Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 I have a 67 R/T 1:1 and I have built a few Revell kits of the car. You are right about the bodies especially the rear quarters and the front wheel arches are incorrect. They still build up to be pretty nice kits though and they go together fairly well. Below is a picture of mine. I think the 67 GTX and the R/T's were such classic designs. I have had a few over the years and seem to be better built cars then the later B bodies. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drodg Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 Revell kit I finished this fall. I think this is a picture before I finished it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gtx6970 Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 I have plans to build one later But it will be a convertible. Im thinking cut it right behind or in the rear door seam and bring the ars end up just a touch I already have the hubcaps I need to replicate this car Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bills72sj Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 I concur with all the error comments above. The wheel arches could be reshaped better (Not perfect with some filing) If you removed the doors and replaced the rocker with a slightly longer one you could tweak both ends upward a tad. That would be a lot of work unless you intended to have opening doors. The short shallow scoops appear short and a bit too forward. They could be lengthened but it would disrupt their relationship to the R/T emblem which is also a tad forward. It will depend how motivated you are to correct things that a less than 1mm off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOBLNG Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 I think I actually like the shape of the kit better than the 1:1 so I would build it as is….but that just my opinion. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike 1017 Posted January 18 Share Posted January 18 23 hours ago, StevenGuthmiller said: Looks to me that if you really want to go down this rabbit hole, you've got a lot of work ahead of you. Along with the drooping rear quarters, just at a quick glance, it appears to me that the front quarter also has a slight droop, not to mention that it appears that both the front and rear wheel openings are shaped wrong. Good luck with that! Edit: The side scoops appear to be too short and dumpy on the kit body as well. Steve I see what you mean by drooping. Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbill Posted January 18 Share Posted January 18 If you think the droop is bad, look at the trunk panel lines…… Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike 1017 Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 To me accuracy does not matter. Are the drooping lines being a result of bad measuring, the limitations of making the tooling or plastic injection process? Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slusher Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 On 1/17/2024 at 3:23 PM, NOBLNG said: I think I actually like the shape of the kit better than the 1:1 so I would build it as is….but that just my opinion. I totally agree! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rigor Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 Easy way add some shims to the rear leaf spring mounts give a little lift Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenGuthmiller Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 4 hours ago, Rigor said: Easy way add some shims to the rear leaf spring mounts give a little lift That won't change the fact that the rear deck and quarters look like a pallet full of batteries were dropped on the trunk lid! I was a little surprised when this thread came up. I hadn't really looked at this kit until now, but now that I have, it's pretty bad. Surprising considering the fact that people are usually praising Revell's work, and bashing AMT and MPC. One thing I gotta say is, while a lot of the old MPC and AMT molds are pretty well hashed at this point, producing a number of problems, at least for the most part, the bodies were pretty accurate. I'm kind of glad that I'm building pretty much nothing but vintage kits these days. At least I don't have to deal with this stuff. Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1972coronet Posted January 22 Share Posted January 22 To add to the hind-section issues of this kit : how about that incorrect differential ? Should be a Dana 60 ! This is the case in the 1967 GTX / RO23 , 1967 Charger, and this , the 1967 Coronet. Swap to a Torqueflite, and the 8.75" rear is correct - not sure which is less vexing, the swap to a Dana or the swap of transmissions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gtx6970 Posted January 22 Share Posted January 22 On 1/20/2024 at 11:18 AM, StevenGuthmiller said: That won't change the fact that the rear deck and quarters look like a pallet full of batteries were dropped on the trunk lid! I was a little surprised when this thread came up. I hadn't really looked at this kit until now, but now that I have, it's pretty bad. Surprising considering the fact that people are usually praising Revell's work, and bashing AMT and MPC. One thing I gotta say is, while a lot of the old MPC and AMT molds are pretty well hashed at this point, producing a number of problems, at least for the most part, the bodies were pretty accurate. I'm kind of glad that I'm building pretty much nothing but vintage kits these days. At least I don't have to deal with this stuff. Steve Agreed, Outside of maybe a couple dozen modern kits I want to do . Old annuals makes up probably 70-80 percent ( or more ) of my build plans the next few years. Mostly quick simple rebuilds and in the case they go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.