Exotics_Builder Posted November 1, 2009 Posted November 1, 2009 OK. Here is a brief matchup of the original AMT 65 Impala Coupe and the Revell 65 Impala Coupe. First side view: Real Car: Now the two models: The Blue tape marked model is the Revell and the Yellow tape marked is the AMT From my perspective, both look reasonably good in profile. Revell’s profile is offset by the much deeper (raised) window trim. In the right angle, it skews the roof line view. Revell’s C-Pillar junction to the body at the rear side window has more of the curve in the real car than the AMT. The AMT’s wheel edges looked less heavy as the trim is more visible than the Revell. Rear Window area: Real Car: Now the two models: Revell: AMT: The Revell window is too rectangular. The inner part of the window frame is more rectangular than the outer. The AMT looks more prototypical to my eye. The Revell roof to deck angle looks to be a little flatter than the AMT’s. The AMT model, however, does not have the panel lines that are on the real car. So, with a little work, the Revell 65 can be adjusted. I do think the trim may be too thick, but it depends on how you paint. Paint thickness could cover that up pretty well. The AMT scripts and trim are pretty thin and could disappear under paint coats. Anyway, until I can get a 66 or better photos of one, that is as far as I can go.
MrObsessive Posted November 1, 2009 Posted November 1, 2009 Okay! Now I see why I have trouble with the Revell roof................looking at your side profile of the two Gerry I can clearly see where the crown of the roof on the Revell is too steep. This throws off the angle of the roof when looking at the body from a front 3/4 view making it appear the leading edge of the C pillar and trailing edge are not parallel. Here's a retouched pic I did with arrows pointing out the problem area................ The AMT to my view is spot on (long before computers folks!) compared to the 1:1. Hopefully Revell fixed this on the '66, but seeing those too square corners on the built up doesn't leave me much hope.
RodBurNeR Posted November 1, 2009 Posted November 1, 2009 (edited) Nice comparison! I had a Revell and got rid of it after figuring out that I didn't really want to build it. (nothing against Revell) Much later on, I got an AMT built up that needs some love and I actually liked it better. I have yet to finish fixing mine there are glue sink marks and a busted cowl. I did get the bumpers rechromed and everything is nice except for the body work that needs done. I also like the AMT chrome better, the Revell looks too "toyish". This pic is kinda old and before I did anything to do it. EDIT: just looked at album date... started 3 years and 11months ago! Time flies! Edited November 1, 2009 by awbcrazy
george 53 Posted November 1, 2009 Posted November 1, 2009 Now THIS is what ya call an honest comparison! BOTH kit's side by side, so you can see all the details! I can't wait for the 66 to come out, caz I have an original kit of that one too! Got both 65's but jeeze, I never even THOUGHT of puttin 'em side by side like you did! Duuuuhhhhh! Thanks for doin this!
Marc @ MPC Motorsports Posted November 1, 2009 Posted November 1, 2009 Thanks for the comparison. Gotta love those old AMT and MPC annuals. Can you tell me how close the fit of the Revell hood is on the AMT? Drag City Casting offers hoods for the Revell '65.
Jon Cole Posted November 2, 2009 Posted November 2, 2009 So, I'm looking at the comparison pics, then at the 1:1 pics, and I notice... another issue. It's the raised portion of the rear quarter, above the style line. it starts at the back, and goes forward until it comes to a point at the rear door line. The point looks different on both cars. BTW, it won't matter to me.The Revell kits look just as good as the AMT kits, when they are sitting on the shelves, still in the sealed boxes. That's how most of my kits look!
RodBurNeR Posted November 2, 2009 Posted November 2, 2009 Thanks for the comparison. Gotta love those old AMT and MPC annuals. Can you tell me how close the fit of the Revell hood is on the AMT? Drag City Casting offers hoods for the Revell '65. none of the parts interchange, it's like the Revell is a 1/24 or something and the proportions are different all over the place. Revell seems wider and lower than the AMT...nothing works from one to the other. You might get the tail lights to fit but you have to cut them apart and make the holes larger.
RodBurNeR Posted November 2, 2009 Posted November 2, 2009 some shots together....black roof is the Revell/Monogram I switched hoods so you can see the Revell hood falls through the AMT body. By the way, the front of the hoods are not even shaped the same, to make a switch either way you will have to add or remove plastic and reshape the hoods and cowl.
cruz Posted November 2, 2009 Posted November 2, 2009 I love when you guys post stuff in conjunction w/ pictures, just makes everything a lot more precise and clear!!
James Flowers Posted November 2, 2009 Posted November 2, 2009 some shots together....black roof is the Revell/Monogram I switched hoods so you can see the Revell hood falls through the AMT body. By the way, the front of the hoods are not even shaped the same, to make a switch either way you will have to add or remove plastic and reshape the hoods and cowl. He is right about the hood. I made the Revel hood fit my 66 AMT body. It was not that hard to do.
Harry P. Posted November 2, 2009 Posted November 2, 2009 Looks to me like the Revell has both an incorrect roof profile (viewed from the side) and an incorrect rear window (corners much too square). AMT's body is the clear winner here. And the missing panel lines between the rear window and the trunk lid on the AMT body are easy enough to scribe into place.
showrodfreak Posted May 9, 2010 Posted May 9, 2010 So, I'm looking at the comparison pics, then at the 1:1 pics, and I notice... another issue. <img src="http://www.modelcarsmag.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/huh.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="" border="0" alt="huh.gif" /> It's the raised portion of the rear quarter, above the style line. it starts at the back, and goes forward until it comes to a point at the rear door line. The point looks different on both cars. BTW, it won't matter to me.The Revell kits look just as good as the AMT kits, when they are sitting on the shelves, still in the sealed boxes. That's how most of my kits look! That style line on the rear quarter is more correct on revell than on the AMT compared with the 1/1
sjordan2 Posted May 9, 2010 Posted May 9, 2010 some shots together....black roof is the Revell/Monogram I switched hoods so you can see the Revell hood falls through the AMT body. By the way, the front of the hoods are not even shaped the same, to make a switch either way you will have to add or remove plastic and reshape the hoods and cowl. <img src="http://images53.fotki.com/v421/photos/5/504634/2912213/100_3591-vi.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" /> <img src="http://images53.fotki.com/v421/photos/5/504634/2912213/100_3589-vi.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" /> Why don't I see pictures in the original post? I can see the code in this window as I reply.
Foxer Posted May 9, 2010 Posted May 9, 2010 Why don't I see pictures in the original post? I can see the code in this window as I reply. BUG ALERT I see nothing myself. RodBurNeR's posts display no images OR the link. I always have the latest Firefox and I also tried switching between all the page "colors". This is something I haven't seen before. These comparisons are great to see, I build an AMT '65 Impala back when it first came out to model the one my friend had at the time. Nice to see it was so good, but I'm disappointed in Revell.
John Goschke Posted May 10, 2010 Posted May 10, 2010 While I agree that Revell seems to have gotten the bulge atop the quarter more correct than AMT, in every other respect AMT's rendition much more accurately captures the character of the original. The issues with Revell's '65 seem so basic that the only way they'll be corrected on the '66 is if they start with a "clean sheet of paper."
RodBurNeR Posted May 11, 2010 Posted May 11, 2010 (edited) Guys, look at the dates on this thread? I probably deleted those photos from my fotki account long ago. When you delete or move photos around in your photo site, you are hosting from....they disappear from everywhere. Sorry, but little did I know this thread would be brought back up. Quick edit... RodBurNeR, on 01 November 2009 - 08:35 PM, said: some shots together....black roof is the Revell/Monogram I switched hoods so you can see the Revell hood falls through the AMT body. By the way, the front of the hoods are not even shaped the same, to make a switch either way you will have to add or remove plastic and reshape the hoods and cowl. Edited May 11, 2010 by RodBurNeR
Casey Posted September 8, 2018 Posted September 8, 2018 (edited) Pretty hard to top (*ba-dum, tish!*) the AMT box art and optional clear roof: Edited September 8, 2018 by Casey
Lordmodelbuilder Posted September 8, 2018 Posted September 8, 2018 That is a pretty cool box. I have the box,but no 65. I do,however have an old AMT 66 Impala.
Rider Posted September 8, 2018 Posted September 8, 2018 45 minutes ago, Casey said: Pretty hard to top (*ba-dum, tish!*) the AMT box art and optional clear roof: https://www.ebay.ca/itm/AMT-1965-CHEVROLET-IMPALA-SS-CONV-ORIGINAL-UNBUILT-MODEL-CAR-KIT-6715-200/132769631500?hash=item1ee9afcd0c:g:ercAAOSw53dbZ1Qz Wowzers
Exotics_Builder Posted September 8, 2018 Author Posted September 8, 2018 Got the 65 Coupe and Convertible plus the 66 Coupe, all yet to be built
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now