AMT v. Revell

[sno_man80]

I recently built a Revel 1965 Mustang, I beleive the detail is great on them compared to AMT. One of the Hobby shop guys is working on an AMT 66 Mustang (same car basically) his exaust it not seperate not the emblems. What is better in terms of detail is better in your opinion??

[MrObsessive]

Revell's by a landslide! However, a lot of guys don't like 1/24 scale so it will depend on your preference.

You could always kitbash that AMT '66 with the newer tool '67........they were essentially the same car, and the '67 has a ton more detail chassis wise. :wink:

[62rebel]

i wish AMT had repopped their 65/66 fastback; i've built a number of R-M 65/66 fastbacks in differing configurations but can't display them alongside my (mostly) 1/25 models; there's something odd (to me anyway) about displaying 1/24 and 1/25 together. i have kitbashed the 66 hardtop using the 67 fastback platform; it looks convincing enough and does a great job of getting rid of those circular front fender wells!

which leads me to another "great idea"; a set of resin inner fender wells to do mustangs and similar cars without resorting to destroying half a new kit!

[Guest zebm1]

Shoot Curt, I have everything from 1/18th down thru antigue autos that would be comparable to to slightly larger than "n" scale, all in tha same cabinet. In my case I find it adds visual interest, just my opinion. Don't have tha foggiest where I'd put my future 1/8th Gold T track racer, squeeze it in sumplace, I guess. :wink:

Hmmm Amt vs. Revell, bought sum last year, but they are still stashed ---no opinion.

Zeb

[62rebel]

just being peculiar; my old display case was a glass jewelry cabinet and i had it filled side to side with my favorites; had to add two glass shelves inside to create a second level. all was fine and dandy until my teenage son came home angry and plopped down on couch slammed big chunky boots on top of case... this is the same kid that never took to any hobbies except video games. what i have actually "displayed" now is the diecast falcon my wife got me for christmas. everything else (!) is back in boxes in the back bedroom and the model closet until i get another display case.

and that 1/8 golden t... is that your own creation? sounds cooool...

[Andy Wyatt]

I haven't built either of the Mustangs...Revell or AMT. In general I prefer Revell though. The AMT '71 Charger and the '58 Impala are nice kits that I enjoyed building but that's about as far as I'll go with nice things to say about AMT. They're o.k. I guess...once you get past the crappy soft plastic, the poor fit and the extensive amount of clean up. Give me a Revell muscle car kit any day!

[Jeff Johnston]

I don't nessesarily think it's Revell vs. AMT. Though as a general statement, I think revell has it over AMT. Meaning, I think that there are generally more "good" Revell kits than there are "good" AMT kits.

The Revell 65 Fastback is the old Monogram kit, as is anything else 1:24 scale from Revell.

If you want to see-build a great AMT kit, pick up the 67 Fastback. The only thing I had to do is adjust the front chassis so the front wheels tucked properly under the car (they stick out in front to much without some modificaiton..). But I think you will find that the AMT 67 is as good, and likely better than the Revell 65.

I also don't care about scale. If I like the car I build it.

[Guest roadkill2525]

I've built about 40 Revell kits that have always been good, always have problems with painting the 1965 Mustang. I've built about 3 and the paint always comes out poorly. I have only built 5 AMT kits, a Plymouth Prowler, Dodge Deora, two 86 El Camino, and a 69 Charger. All these kits had poor results. I say Revell is better than AMT, hands down.