Snake45 Posted December 17, 2014 Posted December 17, 2014 The kit isn't that bad, imo. It's not, unless you're a real big fan of the first-gen Camaros, and then you see all the little annoying shape and detail problems with the body. (All of which could easily have been avoided with just a LITTLE more care, IMHO.) When I get around to building mine (hopefully soon), I'll be making tweaks and fixes and I'll post tutorial/how-to here. This could have been a GREAT kit, instead of yet another one where you can only consider it raw material for a project. Sigh.
Daddyfink Posted December 17, 2014 Posted December 17, 2014 Well, the darn thing came out looking like a Camaro, huh, who knew!
johnbuzzed Posted December 17, 2014 Posted December 17, 2014 Well, the darn thing came out looking like a Camaro, huh, who knew! I'm no expert, but that does look good. Go figure.
Guest Posted December 17, 2014 Posted December 17, 2014 The biggest issue is the grille, and that is a easy fix.
Snake45 Posted December 17, 2014 Posted December 17, 2014 Well, the darn thing came out looking like a Camaro, huh, who knew! I have to admit--from that particular angle, it sure does! Very skillful photography!
Craig Irwin Posted December 18, 2014 Posted December 18, 2014 I've owned many first gen Camaros, and in my opinion this kit just isn't an improvement over the AMT kit.
Snake45 Posted December 18, 2014 Posted December 18, 2014 I've owned many first gen Camaros, and in my opinion this kit just isn't an improvement over the AMT kit. In some ways it is, in others, it's not. I have the original AMT '67 annual, an original MPC '68 annual, several of the "recent" AMT '67s and '68s, and the new Revell '67. None of them is perfect. Each has its strong and weak points. I think that overall, the original AMT annual '67 best captures the shape. The others can be improved in small ways to improve their appearance. I don't think any of them is as accurate as either Revell's '69 Camaro or Revell's '68 Firebird.
Craig Irwin Posted December 19, 2014 Posted December 19, 2014 (edited) I hate the emblems on the decal sheet! Aftermarket photo etch is the only answer, and I can't afford to build like that anymore. And I agree about the front wheel wells, They are always warped or twisted in the box and I have to cut them loose and glue them into the body as a separate part with no locating points. Edited December 19, 2014 by Craig Irwin
Bob Ellis Posted December 19, 2014 Posted December 19, 2014 It is an interesting comment about how the original AMT captures the shape better. I find the new computer generated tools to be a little square compared to the ones produced in the '60s that had good shape but less details.
Snake45 Posted December 19, 2014 Posted December 19, 2014 It is an interesting comment about how the original AMT captures the shape better. I find the new computer generated tools to be a little square compared to the ones produced in the '60s that had good shape but less details. Bob, I recently restored my old original MPC '66 GTO and took the opportunity to compare its body to the "modern" Revell. There are a couple of notable glitches in the MPC body but overall, I thought that it actually captured the shape slightly better than the Revell. Not that the Revell GTO body is bad, mind you, it's just that the MPC was just a little bit better.
Guest Posted December 19, 2014 Posted December 19, 2014 I like the emblems as decals, I dont have the extra to invest into pe.
johnbuzzed Posted December 19, 2014 Posted December 19, 2014 (edited) Regarding those body emblem or logo decals: I once used thin, clear stock (acetate?) under body logos on a GMC truck to add some dimension. I had cut the appropriate size GMC logos from a dealer brochure but I don't remember what I used as an adhesive. It wasn't an original idea; there had previously been an article in another magazine regarding the application of decal emblems and logos onto clear stock, then applying that to the body (that author was working with a Ferrari). This method raises the decal above the body enough to eliminate the painted-on look of a decal. If you're careful, you might even be able to outline the perimeter of the piece with a silver Sharpie to add that chrome emblem appearance. Edited December 19, 2014 by johnbuzzed
jbwelda Posted December 19, 2014 Posted December 19, 2014 3/16" * 1/25 scale = 3/400 of an inch that's pretty much the thickness of the decal don't you think? I guessed at 3/16" being a typical thickness of a 1:1 insignia jb
Dave Metzner Posted December 20, 2014 Posted December 20, 2014 (edited) I just picked this kit up, seems to be pretty nice to me. I'm no Camaro expert but I have a good friend who is (he's restored several Camaros to award wining levels he's also a top notch model builder and a former injection tooling guy) I'll share it with him next time I visit him I'll be curious to get his take on it. Edited December 20, 2014 by Dave Metzner
Frankiebe Posted December 22, 2014 Posted December 22, 2014 Hello Here is a Strato Bench Seat for this Camaro http://www.ebay.com/itm/351260042135?ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1555.l2649
Daddyfink Posted December 22, 2014 Posted December 22, 2014 Here are some more of the Grumpy build. Darn thing still looks like a Camaro!
jbwelda Posted December 22, 2014 Posted December 22, 2014 looks like the right rear tire is up off the ground jb
Deano Posted December 22, 2014 Posted December 22, 2014 looks like the right rear tire is up off the ground jb It's sitting on a piece of glass, I'd say 3/16" thick ... just sayin'
Snake45 Posted December 22, 2014 Posted December 22, 2014 Here are some more of the Grumpy build. Darn thing still looks like a Camaro! Again, skillfully photographed! Though in a couple, the too-much backslanted rear panel is apparent. I must say that I didn't notice this particular flaw in this body until someone else pointed it out. Compared with other '67-'69 Camaro and Firebird kits (and pics of real ones), it's not right, but it's not something that immediately catches my eye. I'm debating whether fixing that would be worth the effort when I build mine...haven't decided one way or the other yet.
Daddyfink Posted December 23, 2014 Posted December 23, 2014 Wow! Thanks for using "Skillfully" on my crappy quickie pics! No, I am not trying to fool the eye, I have always taken pics of all my builds like this. And BTW, Snake, are you also on the WIX? And yes, the car is sitting on my workbench glass piece. Easier to rotate the car on the glass than picking it up over and over. And I know I forgot to take a pic of the aircleaner
Snake45 Posted December 23, 2014 Posted December 23, 2014 (edited) By "skillfully," I meant that you carefully didn't show the grille/front end area, which is IMHO this kit's weakest feature. But your photos are actually quite good--I wish I could get close-up pics that good. Yes, I'm on WIX. Mainly in the Skyraider threads, but also a few others. I'll look for you there. Oh, and I don't think Grumpy ran an air cleaner. Edited December 23, 2014 by Snake45
Ron Hamilton Posted December 23, 2014 Posted December 23, 2014 (edited) Here are some more of the Grumpy build. Darn thing still looks like a Camaro! Very Nice!!!!! Edited December 23, 2014 by Ron Hamilton
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