Just bought my first car kit in over 30 years

[old409]

and can't believe how crappy the quality is. The opening for the windshield is all out of shape, there are moulding indentations on the body and a lot of the detail is moulded crooked. I don't remember ever getting anything that lacked quality like this kit. I haven't done any car kits for years but have done other modeling, trains, planes ,R.C. etc. and never got anything like this

I know the difference between flash and cleaning a kit, this is beyond all of that. It's an AMT 1963 409 and the dies must be shot. Anyone know how the Revell 63 Chevy is? I'm thinking it may be made with newer dies. I would have bought it but I wanted a 409. If need be I'll combine the two. But I'm really disappointed in this one. :evil:

[Mr. Metallic]

I'm pretty sure the 63 is based on their excellent '64 impala tooling. If it is do yourself a favor and get it and do the kitbash because the '64 is a great kit.

[Darin Bastedo]

The reason the amt kit is so crappy is it was originally tooled in 1963 The revell one is excellent.

[MrObsessive]

Yes! The Revell '63 Impala is much, much nicer!

I don't know about the '64.........but I think the '65 kit has a real nice 409 in it you could check out. BTW, the '63 and '64 are two different toolings................not modified reissues. The '64 is an equally excellent kit though!

I'm amazed RC2 is still selling that old '63 kit........isn't it time to put it out of its misery?? :?

[old409]

Thanks for the info. I got this thing straightened out a little but it isn't what I was looking for. This kit has the sissy 409, the single 4 bbl carb. I had a kit years ago that had the dual quads like my real 63 had. I'm not sure but I think the box was the same. Looks like I'm going to get into a little kit bashing to get the car I want.

Mr. Obessive, I love that tri-power 348 picture. I had several of the real thing back many years ago. A lot of people thought the 348 wouldn't run but with the big valve heads and solid lifters, they would run. I had a 1960 biscayne 2 dr. with the tri-power and solid lifters. I added a 4 speed and 4,11 rear. Jahns Power Slot pistons and headers,It was quite a sleeper.

[jbwelda]

yeah and the bonus with the 348/409 was that if you ever needed an anchor for that boat...

wheres my coat?

:wink: :arrow:

[old409]

yeah and the bonus with the 348/409 was that if you ever needed an anchor for that boat...

wheres my coat?

:wink: :arrow:

_____________________________________________________________

Most 348 's were hydraulic lifter ,small valve jobs. The ones with the larger valve heads and solid lifter cams could be made to run pretty well. When I was running my 60 Biscayne there was no timer at the strip, just a flagman and a guy at the end who said who won. I never got a time with that car but I had no problem beating 352 and 390 Fords, now there are some boat anchors for you. I also did fairly well against most Chrysler products that were standard shift. The Chrysler automatics would rip you a new one off the starting line and you had a tough time catching up.

The 409 I had ran real well. The best time I got with it was 12.01 at 114 mph. Thats not so hot nowdays but it was very good back in the mid 60's. I had absolutely no problems with 390, 406 Fords and no problems with Chrysler 413 except for the Torqueflites. Chrysler had no 4 speed in the 1963 's and that helped me somewhat with them.

The W block Chevies would run but you had to have them tuned, The boat anchor rep comes from there being so many on the streets that weren't tuned and they were boat achors. They were tempermental things and had to be tuned. I sometimes had to set the valve lash several times a raceday until I switched over to threaded rocker studs. The AFB's could be tempremental too.

I had my 409 into 1965 and it didn't take a back seat to the so-called muscle cars that came out in 64. I didn't race as much in 64 or 65 but never did lose to any of the newer muscle cars. One man's boat anchor is another man's racer.

[BigPoppa]

I think it's funny how your first kit to get back into the hobby after 30 years was around for 40 years. :shock:

Definately get the Revell version. They've come up with this little thing called a detailed chassis-no more metal axles!

[old409]

I'm going to check out the Revell 63. The local Hobbytown had one when I was in there the other day. It may be longer than 30 years since I put a model car kit together. I was using 30 as a rounded off time. I'm amazed at the kits out there today. The diecast is unreal and the prices on most of the stuff is decent.

I'm retired and have lots of time to think about the good old days and I thought I'd put a couple kits together of the cars I used to have. The 63 was my favorite. I had a 70 Charger R/T that I liked too, and some Packards. Mostly stuff that has no kits. I want to do one for my grandson. It's a 1992 Eagle Talon TSI. So far no luck finding that one or even anything close to it.