1/25 Lindberg '66 Chevelle Super Sport

[Mark]

I too have an old Monogram '66 that I started converting to stock, using the chassis from their '70.  All those parts are paid for, some of the work is done...might as well try to make something out of it...

[Ace-Garageguy]

Mark and Snake...thanks for the input.

Mr. Snake...how much work did you put into the front of that roof? I went cheap and bought a gluebomb of that flipnose kit, and the upper part of the windshield frame is bowed down so much, the poor thing looks like it has a forehead. The glass fits it, so I assumed it was made that way...but yours doesn't look anywhere near as bad as mine.

[Fat Brian]

Ace, what do you think about the AMT 67? It's probably easier to find than the Revell kit since it was out recently. 

[Mark]

The front of the roof (over the windshield) on the Monogram flip-front '66 does have that "dip".  Sometimes those kits are assembled with excessive amounts of cement, installing the windshield that way could accentuate the problem.  You wouldn't be using the body from that kit for a serious build with the other kits that are out there.

The AMT '67 body has thicker A-pillars than other kits replicating '66-'67 GM midsize cars.  The Revell '67 is pretty good in that respect.  Years ago, I combined the Revell '67 roof and engine compartment with a sliced and diced Monogram Hurst Hairy Olds body to create the master for a resin '67 4-4-2.

[Snake45]

28 minutes ago, Ace-Garageguy said:

Mr. Snake...how much work did you put into the front of that roof? I went cheap and bought a gluebomb of that flipnose kit, and the upper part of the windshield frame is bowed down so much, the poor thing looks like it has a forehead. The glass fits it, so I assumed it was made that way...but yours doesn't look anywhere near as bad as mine.

Mine was probably as bad as yours to start, or near so. Below are before and after pics of my fix. This took about 15 minutes of CAREFUL work involving hot water. I could have even brought it up a little more, but I discovered, as you did, that the glass almost seems made to fit the bowed-in top. This was the best compromise I found between correct shape and windshield fit. (I didn't want to make a new windshield.) 

 

 

[Snake45]

11 minutes ago, Fat Brian said:

Ace, what do you think about the AMT 67? It's probably easier to find than the Revell kit since it was out recently. 

I built both side by side when they first came out. The AMT isn't horrible but the Revell is DEFINITELY more accurate in shape. I'll never do another "serious" build of the AMT; any such I build will be on Revells. The Revell kit isn't hard to find at all. I think it was last reissued as California Wheels but there might have been another reissue since then, even. 

[Mark]

The AMT stock version hasn't been issued since before the Round 2 era.  They'll probably bring it back at some point, not right away though.  They've had the pro street version out for a while, it seems to be selling well.  It has survived a number of Hobby Lobby "resets".

[stavanzer]

It's happened again, for me.

Snake there is no visible difference in the two photos you posted. (other than the presence of the hood, that is).

I don't see what the rest of you folks see. I guess that is why these body shape error discussions puzzle me so much. Even when circled in red, I cannot make out what the heck is bothering so many builders about the shapes of kits. They all LITERALLY look alike to me.

Well, Model On! !

[Fat Brian]

1 minute ago, alexis said:

It's happened again, for me.

Snake there is no visible difference in the two photos you posted. (other than the presence of the hood, that is).

I don't see what the rest of you folks see. I guess that is why these body shape error discussions puzzle me so much. Even when circled in red, I cannot make out what the heck is bothering so many builders about the shapes of kits. They all LITERALLY look alike to me.

Well, Model On! !

Look at the center top of the windshield in the first picture, how it sags down in the middle.

[stavanzer]

Nope. I don't see it.

[Fat Brian]

39 minutes ago, alexis said:

Nope. I don't see it.

I don't always see these things either. I really think it boils down to how your brain interprets lines and shapes and what you're individually sensitive to. It's the same function that makes us find different faces and bodies more or less attractive. 

[Ace-Garageguy]

1 hour ago, Fat Brian said:

I don't always see these things either. I really think it boils down to how your brain interprets lines and shapes and what you're individually sensitive to. It's the same function that makes us find different faces and bodies more or less attractive. 

Excellent point. Also why different music appeals to different people, no matter what they were raised around, and why music is just random noise to some folks (yes, I've actually met one of those).

But one would hope that the people who are employed to design the real ones, and those who are employed to render full-scale vehicles as scale models, would be on the end of the spectrum that's most sensitive to this kind of thing.

Sadly, that's not always the case.      

[MrObsessive]

On 4/10/2018 at 10:32 PM, Ace-Garageguy said:

I just bought one, have it sitting in front of me.

The nose looks wrong, and comparing it to online photos, I see the front of the front fenders, including the body line, actually goes UP on the model, whereas it goes DOWN slightly on the real car.

The model also renders the base of the windshield pillar klugey and wrong, where it intersects the door. The pillars are also shaped and tapered incorrectly.

The front wheel arches are wrong, and the rear edge of the hood and the cowl are too low relative to the windshield opening as well.

It's subtle, but at the same time so bad, it almost looks like the front fenders are short-shotted, or warped...but the hood fits what's there perfectly.

Careful comparison with the box-art photo shows the same problems I'm seeing with the parts in my hands.

The upside is that it looks like a lot of the problems can be corrected with heavy file work, as there seems to be sufficient meat in the affected areas to re-sculpt them somewhat. It also looks like it should be possible to add meat to the undersides of the fender tops, should it become necessary.

I am however, frankly, disgusted at the prospect of, ONCE AGAIN, having to RE-DO work the kit manufacturer SHOULD HAVE GOT RIGHT.

 

 

This is the first I noticed this thread and I had to dig up pics I have of the 1:1 to see what you're talking about Bill. Yes, those A pillars are definitely wonky looking compared to the real thing. Almost to my eyes that the windshield itself is a bit "chopped"?

I have this kit, but never took a real close look at it till now as I bought the original YEARS ago when it first came out. Now that I've seen it, as they say, I can't unsee it.

Yes, I do agree that not everyone is in tune to what might be wrong with a particular body shape or detail. Someone like myself that can notice these things either when they're pointed out, or sometimes IMMEDIATELY especially if said car was once a part of your life (1957-'58 Plymouth for example.........we won't go there!).

So, if the mood ever strikes me to build this car, I'd almost be tempted to "swap bodies and fenders" into something more pleasing to the eyes. Been there, done that with a certain '59 Chevy.

[Ace-Garageguy]

31 minutes ago, MrObsessive said:

This is the first I noticed this thread and I had to dig up pics I have of the 1:1 to see what you're talking about Bill. Yes, those A pillars are definitely wonky looking compared to the real thing. Almost to my eyes that the windshield itself is a bit "chopped"?

I have this kit, but never took a real close look at it till now as I bought the original YEARS ago when it first came out. Now that I've seen it, as they say, I can't unsee it.

So, if the mood ever strikes me to build this car, I'd almost be tempted to "swap bodies and fenders" into something more pleasing to the eyes. Been there, done that with a certain '59 Chevy.

Hi Bill, and glad to  have your input.

The more I look at the Lindberg body, the more convinced I'm becoming that some heavy file work to lower the forward-most ends of the front fender character lines, and possibly strategic cuts to lower the tops of the front fenders as well (assuming there's just not material there to file them down enough), will at least get the thing to the point where the first impression isn't nose-climbing. I can live with a model that looks pretty good, but to my eye, this thing is immediately jarring.

I'm tempted to buy another one, do side-by-side comparisons of what I consider to be minimum necessary corrections, then fix the second one to match it.

[Snake45]

16 hours ago, Ace-Garageguy said:

The more I look at the Lindberg body, the more convinced I'm becoming that some heavy file work to lower the forward-most ends of the front fender character lines, and possibly strategic cuts to lower the tops of the front fenders as well (assuming there's just not material there to file them down enough), will at least get the thing to the point where the first impression isn't nose-climbing. I can live with a model that looks pretty good, but to my eye, this thing is immediately jarring.

Sounds like the work I had to do to build the MPC '67 GTO and '69 Camaro, and the Revell '67 Corvette roadster. I don't enjoy it, but it has to be done. 

BTW, you asked me about fixing the roof and I dug up pics and post them and you don't even comment, good or bad? How rude! 

[Ace-Garageguy]

2 hours ago, Snake45 said:

...BTW, you asked me about fixing the roof and I dug up pics and post them and you don't even comment, good or bad? How rude! 

I appreciated your response, went back looking at the same area on mine, then started pulling up other images of the same kit wherever I could find them.

Another problem with that body shell I haven't seen addressed is that besides it having that unfortunate curl down on the top of the windshield frame, when viewed from the side, the roof climbs towards the front, unlike the real cars.

Somewhere in there, the discussion around "I don't see the problem" popped up.

Again, I appreciate your taking the time to post the photos of your corrective work. I'm glad I didn't pay much for the thing...though the chassis is a fair starting point to replicate the custom frame under the real one (a very expensive hot mess built 12 years back by somebody in the Northwest with a whole hell of a lot more ego than knowledge...and the primary reason I've been on the dammed car so long...WAY beyond what my original contract called out).

At this point, I rather doubt I'll bother with doing a reasonably correct chassis for the models, and just get the "first impression" close enough so I don't cringe every time I look at it.

 

[Snake45]

I'm tellin' ya, for your purposes, you might be as well or better off starting with this. It's been looking good on my shelf for over a decade now, and the Lindberg keeps sliding farther and farther down my "must build" list. 

https://www.diecastmodelswholesale.com/1966-chevrolet-chevelle-ss-396-blue-1-24-diecast-model-car-by-maisto/

[Snake45]

Mine's nearing completion....

[Plowboy]

The easiest way to get a decent looking '66 Chevelle is to convert the Revell '67 using the front clip from the El Camino, tail light panel and rear bumper from the Monogram. I can't remember if I had to narrow the tail light panel or not. But, I did have to narrow the rear bumper slightly. The only issue with the clip swap is the bottom of the fenders don't have exact matching shapes. But, one could leave that portion attached to the body.

[Classicgas]

On 12/21/2019 at 2:04 PM, Ace-Garageguy said:

Excellent point. Also why different music appeals to different people, no matter what they were raised around, and why music is just random noise to some folks (yes, I've actually met one of those).

But one would hope that the people who are employed to design the real ones, and those who are employed to render full-scale vehicles as scale models, would be on the end of the spectrum that's most sensitive to this kind of thing.

Sadly, that's not always the case.      

What Corvette kit is that Bill?

[Ace-Garageguy]

On 12/31/2019 at 3:41 PM, Snake45 said:

Mine's nearing completion...

That looks a lot better than I would have expected from that horrible kit.

[Ace-Garageguy]

9 hours ago, Plowboy said:

The easiest way to get a decent looking '66 Chevelle is to convert the Revell '67 using the front clip from the El Camino, tail light panel and rear bumper from the Monogram. I can't remember if I had to narrow the tail light panel or not. But, I did have to narrow the rear bumper slightly. The only issue with the clip swap is the bottom of the fenders don't have exact matching shapes. But, one could leave that portion attached to the body.

Thank you. I'm looking into that possibility as we speak...

[Snake45]

1 hour ago, Ace-Garageguy said:

That looks a lot better than I would have expected from that horrible kit.

Me too.   I finished the wretched backbirth today. Hope to have finished pics up in the next day or so. 

[Ace-Garageguy]

12 hours ago, Classicgas said:

What Corvette kit is that Bill?

Palmer. A real beauty, eh?

[Snake45]

My Monogram Chevelle is DONE(-ish)!   (Couple more pics in the Bring Out Your Dead thread in Workbench.) 

Darn--just saw that I forgot to hit the door handles with Silver Sharpie. Oh well, it still needs quite a few little tweaks.