What are the best ways to improve AMT's '69 Chevelle?

[Monty]

Over the years, I've heard bits and pieces of information regarding improving the accuracy of this kit, and I'd like to compile a complete list for when I take this project on. Here's what I've got so far:

1) Use the chassis, firewall and engine bay sheet metal from the AMT '69 442.

2) Use Modelhaus promo front and rear bumpers - allegedly better & no mold lines.

3) Use Modelhaus taillights & bezels. Seems like I've heard there's something really "off' about the kit's taillights or bezels, or both.

Assuming I change up to the 442 chassis etc, will the Chevelle's engine look accurate enough if I fill the axle hole in the block?

Anything else?

[Casey]

The engine is the easiest thing to replace and absolutely should be replaced since there are far better replacements available. Are you putting in a small or big block Chevy engine? There are plenty of choices from Revell alone for either engine- '65 Chevelle SS396 Z-16, '66 Impala, '69 Camaro, '69 Nova, etc.

If the chassis from the '72 Olds is close to correct, I would use that instead of the MPC '69 Olds chassis, though the '69s chassis is not bad.

You're still stuck with the shallow interior from the AMT '69 kit, though.

[Eshaver]

Monty, i''o with what you listed and Casey made some great points too. Ed Shaver

[Casey]

I forgot about the super-deep Chevy Rally wheels in the AMT '69 Chevelle kit, too. I don't know that I'd say the Rallies in the Revell '69 Camaro or '67 Chevelle are a huge upgrade, but they at least seem to be of a more accurate stock width.

[diymirage]

best way to improve ANY chevelle is by replacing it with a mopar

[Casey]

Is the AMT '70 Chevelle SS based on the '69 kit? I've never looked the '70 kit over to see if it's any better or not.

[Monty]

the '68-'69 Chevelle is so overdue for a modern tooling kit it's not even funny

Ya know, it's kinda funny - I wondered who at Revell greenlighted their '49 Mercury when AMT already produced who knows how many of their own '49 Mercs; same with the '58 impala - AMT's was, IMHO, state of the art for the time. Opening doors & hood, poseable wheels, detailed suspension, separate exhaust. If you're a fan of '58 Impalas, what's not to like? If I had been in charge of Revell at the time this was brought up, I don't think I would've allowed it to go into production because of AMT's market saturation with their version, and, from what I hear of the numbers Revell has sold, I would've been wrong.

I say all that to say this: If Revell can do well releasing cars that've already been produced for decades by another company, I think they would make a mint if they did a new '69 Chevelle kit & held themselves to the standards they used to create their '69

Camaro.

[Rob Hall]

Given how many '60s Chevys Revell has tooled up in the last 20 years or so (starting w/ the '69 Camaro) it wouldn't surprise me if the do a '68-69 Chevelle sooner or later..

[Casey]

I say all that to say this: If Revell can do well releasing cars that've already been produced for decades by another company, I think they would make a mint if they did a new '69 Chevelle kit & held themselves to the standards they used to create their '69

Camaro.

And considering it could be a modified reissue in the form of a '68 and '70-'72 Chevelles, it's a must do. Revell has already covered the '65, '66 (wagon and ElCo) and the '67 Chevelle in two versions, so a '68/9 makes complete and total sense.

Can part of the AMT '68 El Camino (dash, seats, etc.) be used for a '69 Chevelle? I'm not sure what the '68 ElCo kit's contents are, either.

[Monty]

And considering it could be a modified reissue in the form of a '68 and '70-'72 Chevelles, it's a must do. Revell has already covered the '65, '66 (wagon and ElCo) and the '67 Chevelle in two versions, so a '68/9 makes complete and total sense.

Casey, as I'm sure you know, there was a major body style change between '67 & '68. Do you know if the chassis changed much? If it didn't, you may be on to something. As someone else pointed out, they've got plenty of more recently tooled big blocks to choose from (I don't know if various parts of molds can be interchanged), so with an interior update and a new body... well, we can dream. I can see them doing spinoffs of the kit too, such as a Motion or Yenko version. Are ya listening, Revell?

[Len Woodruff]

All of the Chevelle's chassis sstarting in 64 were the same at least through 72. I had a 68 and the difference between that and a 67 was the wheel base that went to 112 inch from 116?

[Guest]

Something else to consider might be the chassis from the Revell '67 Chevelle. Anyone know exactly what the difference would be in the wheelbases between the two? It may not be as much as one would think in scale. I have an Amt '69 Torino project that I used the chassis from the AMT '66 Fairlane. Never would have thought it would work,but the wheelbase is perfect and it fits the body like it was made for it.

[Chuck Most]

Ya know, it's kinda funny - I wondered who at Revell greenlighted their '49 Mercury when AMT already produced who knows how many of their own '49 Mercs; same with the '58 impala - AMT's was, IMHO, state of the art for the time. Opening doors & hood, poseable wheels, detailed suspension, separate exhaust. If you're a fan of '58 Impalas, what's not to like? If I had been in charge of Revell at the time this was brought up, I don't think I would've allowed it to go into production because of AMT's market saturation with their version, and, from what I hear of the numbers Revell has sold, I would've been wrong.

I say all that to say this: If Revell can do well releasing cars that've already been produced for decades by another company, I think they would make a mint if they did a new '69 Chevelle kit & held themselves to the standards they used to create their '69

Camaro.

AMT's Merc could be built factory stock... with a chop, channel, and a more than a few custom body mods (not to mention a Cad mill and custom interior), the same cannot be said for Revell's take on the subject. The only thing AMT and Revell's Mercs have in common is the year and make. As far as the '58's- for me personally it's kind of a draw- there are things I really like and things I'm not so hot about with both versions. I really think the '69 Nova was a fantastic idea- it's pretty clear the AMT '72 tooling is about one more reissue away from being totally shot, and I don't think it would have been a job for RC2 (at the time) to have tooled up a new Nova.

I do think Revell is missing the boat by not doing a modern-tool '68 or '69 Chevelle, especially considering there is so much room for improvement with the AMT kits. And of couse, a '68/'69 Chevelle kit could beget a pretty nice 1:25 '70 somewhere down the road, and '70 is a must-have year for many Chevelle nuts. Yeah, AMT and Monogram already make '70 Chevelle kits but, again, plenty of room for improvement, and don't try telling me a newly tooled version wouldn't be a strong seller.

[ChrisPflug]

Technically the 64-67 chassis for all models had a 115" wheelbase- the 68-72 used a slightly different chassis with 112" wheelbase for the 2 doors and 116" for 4 doors, wagons, and the El Caminos. The 70-72 Montes also had 116" wheelbase but the "extra length" ahead of the cowl rather than "in the middle"

Seems that the later AMT '68 El Camino was a bit bigger than the Chevelles even with the same "advertised" scale- sometimes swaps that make sense based on the 1:1 don't translate directly in scale

Interesting too that the wagons and El Caminos used different front sheetmetal from 70-72 than the hardtops and sedans- they weren't updated with the "bulges" - GM either figured the "flat" quarters would look better or the lower volume of the wagons and trucks weren't worth retooling for and worth producing different "flat sided" fenders