1963 Impala Question

[Brutalform]

I was considering building the Ronnie Sox / Larry Wilson 63 Impala. Now, I already have the old AMT straight metal axle kit, but, I was wondering, if the Revell 63 kit is overall a better kit? Preferably with a better detailed chassis, without all of the suspension molded in? Thanks.......: )

[Art Anderson]

I was considering building the Ronnie Sox / Larry Wilson 63 Impala. Now, I already have the old AMT straight metal axle kit, but, I was wondering, if the Revell 63 kit is overall a better kit? Preferably with a better detailed chassis, without all of the suspension molded in? Thanks.......: )

No contest! Revell's is pretty much state of the art for the 21st Century---the AMT kit was tooled in mid-1962--end of statement.

Art

[Eshaver]

Tom, Art, if you really want to get the most out of the Revell 1963 Impala , grab a Revell 1964 Impala as it will allow you to really trick out a Full detail Impala for 1963. Ed Shaver

[Brutalform]

Thanks Art...I just wanted to know before I got a Revell, and was disappointed with it.

I will look into the 64 as well....Thanks Ed

Edited September 20, 2011 by Brutalform

[Junkman]

Tom, Art, if you really want to get the most out of the Revell 1963 Impala , grab a Revell 1964 Impala as it will allow you to really trick out a Full detail Impala for 1963. Ed Shaver

Can you please explain why?

I have neither kit, but they are on my shopping list. Based on what you wrote, I should consider buying one 63 and two 64s and use one of the latter to pimp the former?

[Dr. Cranky]

I like the 62, after that they lose the great styling . . .

[Eshaver]

I dunno Cranky, I used to own a 62 . I always thought the 62 looked heavy in the rear . i always wanted a 63. However , I made up by buying two 66's . Then , the 67 came out ! I still want a 67 . I shouldn't have traded the pair of 66's for both a 50 Mercury and a 69 Oldsmobile ............... Ed Shaver

[Guest]

Personally,I think the body on the AMT kit looks a lot better than the Revell kit. If I'm not mistaken,the Revell kit was based on a die cast tool and it certainly looks the part as does their '64. I would get one of the AMT '62 Super Stock Impalas (lots of parts with it that you'll need) and kitbash it with a '63 body. You could then take the leftovers and build a curbside kit with them.

[Brutalform]

the other thing to think about here to with what you want to do is that it's going to require an engine swap if you use the Revell kit.

Yes, Dave..I do have a lot of 409- 427 "W" stuff in my parts bin, plus a few things I bought from MCW. I plan on buying the decals from Lucas.

Roger made a good point, as I see a few of the 63s built up, and they do look a bit weird, especially the headlight, and tail light areas. The S/S kits out there are not that expensive, and I already DO have a 63 AMT kit. Maybe this will be the way to go. The only thing with the AMT kit, is, the lights look weird also.

Edited October 8, 2011 by Brutalform

[Eshaver]

Tom, A M T tooled the annual back in late 62. Meanwhile the tail light panel was modified sometime about 1968. I'm told they lost a bunch of parts . O K , this explains the weird re-pop we all got in the 80's with that Prestige issue kit where the sheet even eluded to a bunch of parts missing like the firewall for instance . By that time Tom, the tail lights were now part of the body assembly. As strange as the Asymmetrical Styline version was back in 1963, this kit had a heck of a lot of potential with the several front ends , tail light versions etc .......Ed Shaver

[Guest]

The only thing with the AMT kit, is, the lights look weird also.

Tom,you can drill them out and add buckets and lenses or apply a thick coat of Testors windshield glue over them. The glue method works great over chrome headlights. If you put it on pretty thick,it's very convincing.

[Joe Handley]

I like the 62, after that they lose the great styling . . .

I gotta agree there, so long as it's the Bubble top, the formal roof just doesn't look as good to me.

[MrObsessive]

GM did some clever styling tricks back in those days. Believe it or not, the 1959-64 Chevy's are all basically the same car!. Same cowl and basic windshield header for all of those years. GM simply squared up the lines as the years went on, and completely got rid of the dogleg windshield after '62.

As far as the '63's available-------I'm a little partial to the '63 from AMT only because its lines are a little sharper and crisper, which represent the 1:1 better.

The Revell one seems a little "soft" in the creases in some areas, but you can't beat the chassis detail! That wins hands down over the AMT any day.

[Erik Smith]

The chassis on Revell's kit is superior to the AMT kit. The frame, axles, etc are all separate parts (similar to AMT's kits of the mid to late 90s). Also, the trunk opens on the Revell kit and includes some trunk detail. The engine in he Revell kit is weird - it's like a 60s era design in a 90s era kit. The engine is only a few, poorly detailed parts.

Now, if your looking at 62 Chevys, the Revell kits are a couple of the nicest kits around.

[Brutalform]

OK, here is the plan. I ordered a 1963 Biscayne resin body from MCW, and decals from Lucas. I already have a nice set of deep "steel wheels", and a few big blocks laying around, to build Hayden Proffitt's, black on red Z-33 "Mystery Motor" car. I plan on using the Revell's 63 kit for the suspension, tail lights and other odds and ends.

I might hold off on the Revell kit, because I have a few 61, and 62 chassis lying around. If one of these can work, I will not even need the Revell kit.

Does anyone know if the Lindburg 61, or AMT 62 chassis is similar in design to the Revell 63 chassis?? I am not worried about the fit as much as it looking like a REAL 63 chassis.

Edited October 9, 2011 by Brutalform