Polar Lights 64 GTO

[Snake45]

Snake, you say the window openings are pretty much the same. That means corrections to the PL C-pillar need to happen at the rear, which is a bit of a complication, but maybe not terrible. Can anyone speak to the accuracy of the AMT 65 GTO roof that was separate from the body ( not the "custom" one) ? Thinking of a glue-on replacement.

I only actually measured the height of the window opening, not anything else.

I think the whole PL roof is too long, though the C-pillar is too "upright" at the front edge, too. Moving the whole roof forward (or using another, shorter roof) would involve just WAY more to the body and maybe the interior as well than I want to put into a '64 GTO. I'm just gonna trim that front edge of the C-pillar back and call it good, I believe.

Edited June 17, 2015 by Snake45

[Art Anderson]

I recall building one of the turquoise versions not too long after they came out.I was disappointed at the pronounced front to rear bow of the body and the height at which it sat.

This kit (both HT and Cvt) were created off reference work done by the legendary John Mueller (who was AMT's principal kit designer/researcher for years--and now does that on a freelance basis for the two US model car kit companies, along with a couple of diecast outfits).

For starters, don't compare this one with the old Monogram kit--that one is too wide, and far too square and angular. Real '64 GTO's do have a pronounced downward slope of both the hood/front fender tops and in the rear deck! "Beauty Shots" of these cars as found on the Internet may not show that as much--but then those pictures are shot for appearance, not model kit reference!

Dave Metzner, now the product development guy for Moebius Models, was the man behind almost all Polar Lights kits. I worked just down the hallway from him at Playing Mantis (Tom Lowe's first company) doing Johnny Lightning product development, and got pulled into some of the development of the PL GTO kits. From where I sit, those are still the best and most accurately done '64 GTO kits out there.

Art

[Bob Ellis]

Sometimes it is hard to compare models and decide which is correct. You just know something is different.

Probably should have introduced pictures of real cars, instead of just models.

Edited June 17, 2015 by Bob Ellis

[Snake45]

Well, somebody pooched up that C-pillar shape.

Edited June 17, 2015 by Snake45

[Bob Ellis]

Snake, I going to have to agree with you. Seeing is believing.

The rear quarter window ends before the wheel opening starts on the PL. I still think the idea of cutting the roof a little will fix that problem.

Edited June 17, 2015 by Bob Ellis

[Art Anderson]

That C-pillar is really noticeable now that you've mapped it out. That old AMT body looks right to these middle-aging eyes. Just holding some lined paper against my screen, the PL body shows to be "taller", and I see it easily, especially in the rear quarter panel. It has a "stumpy" proportion that is the opposite of the "lean-but-muscular" AMT quarter panel. Do you see it? Could be a photo thang! Dangit, now I want one of those AMT bodies.

Overall, the PL body looks to my eyes to need about a 1mm slice taken out of the body from stem to stern, a slight pie-cut vertical at the back of the front fender opened up to take a little of the droop out of the front end, and the C-post massaged into shape.

Just one man's opinion...

Thanks again for the comparison. This helps. I have a couple of these and really want to build them as right as I can. I like my old Monogram kits, but they are 1/24. Was really happy to see these in 1/25 when they came out. I think they have much potential yet.

John Mueller's extensive photographic references had a well marked carpenter's rule laid up against whatever part of the car was being photographed. Those measurements were used in instructing the pattern makers as to all dimensions. By contrast, AMT Corporation's draftsmen more than likely were having to interpret from photo's of styling clay mockups, perhaps pictures of preproduction cars, as was pretty much the case with those "Annual Series" new car models and the promotional models that preceded the 3in1 model kit production, as promo's were expected to be in dealer showrooms either at, or close soon after "new car introduction time".

Art

[Snake45]

Something went wrong somewhere, because that roof clearly isn't right.

[Robberbaron]

Snake, thanks for doing this comparo. Looks like it should be an easy fix to trim that C-pillar back. I'm suspecting that's the main factor throwing off the whole "look" of this kit, along with the off-road stance that you get out of the box.

I'm thinking doing this mod along with dropping the ride height will get this kit looking about 95% correct.

Art, I don't doubt the capabilities of John Mueller or Dave Metzner, but didn't I hear that the story of this and the '65 Coronet was that management rammed these kits through into production before all the kinks were sorted out, to keep Wally World happy? (Wasn't ownership RC2 by this time?)

That accounted for things like the weakly detailed, molded in headlights, among other things. Wonder if that also factored in to the mis-shapen C-pillar? Speculating that even if they had seen it, maybe they weren't allowed to make any additional tooling changes?

[niteowl7710]

Shhh Snake you're too close to finding out where all the bodies are buried. When you start looking at who's involved with what and what problems the past efforts have had, then Fast Forward to the present it suddenly all makes sense why some new kits aren't quite right either. We're all supposed to be too gleefully happy that new kits are reigning down from.upon high to notice pesky little track records...

[martinfan5]

[unclescott58]

I still like the PL Goats. That "C" may not be right. But, over all the kit looks good to me. I'm happy with both of mine.

Scott

[Snake45]

I still like the PL Goats. That "C" may not be right. But, over all the kit looks good to me. I'm happy with both of mine.

Scott

I'm not a HUGE '64 GTO fan, so I think once I get the C pillars sorted out, I'll be pretty happy with this one, too.

But I can relate. I AM a huge fan of the first-gen Camaros, and to me, Revell's '67 just don't cut it. I can hardly believe it when someone builds it without fixing its problems. I guess some here are gonna feel that way about ME when I post pics of my PL GTO. Assuming of course that I ever actually do get around to building the thing. Ah shucks oh well.

[bisc63]

Yeah, they're definitely workable kits, but not faultless. A LOT of things can go wrong between measuring and final product. The best laid plans...

[Korsair]

Thanks Snake, and the rest of you guys for your info on the kit. I too am a 1/25th scale guy, a Pontiac FAN, and was interested in how this kit was. I just finished the Monogram 1/24th scale kit, which was "fun", but am glad to be able to build it in 1/25th. The pic you posted Snake sure makes it obvious what you may want to cut off, but if there is any chance of your posting the amounts you cut off, that would be appreciated, as I don't have any of the comparison kit/bodies you listed (somewhere I may have an AMT '65 GTO), but numbers would be great.

It is amazing when you think about it, how the "models" can sometimes be off in shape/measurements, especially with so many real examples out there that could be used to verify, but as was mentioned, sometimes there are forces working behind the scenes that have huge affects on the kits. Having a close relationship with the guys behind AMtech (aircraft models), the stories of how models are made, tested, and either produced or not is amazing. It ALWAYS boils down to money, as to whether to fix something that is wrong, or let it fly and take the chance it won't smack you in the face.

Actually, when you think about it, it is surprising that as a "SNAP" kit, you even get options for the build, though relatively simple ones.

[FASTBACK340]

I'm getting to know one of these very intimately! Nice to know the kit is "workable" if the customer wants a replica!

[MrObsessive]

When this kit debuted some ten years or so ago, I had mentioned (on another board) about how the kit appeared to me to have some proportion problems. The "banana" shape seemed that way to me due to the arc of the beltline in relation to the shape of the fenders. The body always seemed "thick" to me as at the time I was building Monogram's '64. Now while that kit is 1/24th, the body lines seemed a bit better to me, albeit the upper window line on the kit is not quite right as it's too straight, and doesn't have the sublte downward slope particularly above the rear quarter window.

Revell's '65 Chevelle suffers from this same misshapen upper quarter window as the 1:1 has  the same subtle downward arc-------something they got right on the AMT annuals when these cars were new.

Snake, it's good that you spotted where to cut the roof as this is one of the problem areas I noticed back when this kit was intro'd. Another issue to me, although this can be subjective from builder to builder, is the C pillar is not "fast" enough. Meaning that the whole C pillar needs to lean forward a few degrees further. No biggie in the end product-------just something that seems "off" to me.

Indeed the Chevelle while it had a similar roofline shape to the Pontiac/Buick/Olds, they do NOT interchange, as the Chevelle had the shortest of those roof stampings back then. Even going into the 1966-67 hardtop styling, the Chevelle once again had the shorter of all of the divisions rooflines. Rear backlites they might have shared, but the C pillars are different. 1968-72 was a whole 'nuther world for GM's midsizers.........

Just one man's 2¢.........your mileage may vary!

Just too add.........one thing this kit needs badly, is to sit a few scale inches lower when fully built! That would go a long way in "hiding" some of the uprightness the kit suffers from. FWIW, Monogram's '64 suffers from this same problem.........one of the reasons I hate platform interiors as this leads to "stacking", and makes the models sit too high. Real car interiors don't sit on platforms-------they're on the opposite side of what would be the chassis floor.

Someone mentioned about Monogram's version being too "boxy".........so was the actual car! 1964 really ushered in the era of boxy, straight lines, especially for the midsize cars. Banished were wraparound windshields and tailfins!

 

[Nova-ss]

Bill,

on the chassis plate what is a good detailed substitute for this kit?..thank you..Chris 

[MrObsessive]

Bill,

on the chassis plate what is a good detailed substitute for this kit?..thank you..Chris 

Hmmm.............Chris you might want to try Revell's '66 GTO. It's readily available, and they're both the same scale. Very few if any changes were done from '64-'66, so that should work with some tweaking.

You may also want to give AMT's '66 Olds a look........ same chassis as the other divisions and IIRC, they shared the same wheelbase. Of course, sometimes that doesn't mean much in our model world!

 

[Nova-ss]

So true.I have a few 66 Olds that I could use.I don't have the 66 GTO...I mite look at that one to use on the chassis for the 64 GTO. I have the model now for the GTO 64...was you modeling or around when AMT  kitted the Lemans,GTO in 64? if so my friend Ken Falletta told me that was the best...most accurate body...is thay true in your opinion? ....thanks,Chris 

[MrObsessive]

was you modeling or around when AMT  kitted the Lemans,GTO in 64? if so my friend Ken Falletta told me that was the best...most accurate body...is thay true in your opinion? ....thanks,Chris 

In '64 I was just starting to notice cars (three years old at the time that was new), I can remember seeing lots and lots of tailfins on the streets as '50's early '60's stuff would have been what was mostly around back then. Model cars would be about 14 years away for me as far as having any big interest.

As far as accuracy, I have to give it to AMT as having the most accurate '64 GTO body, with Monogram coming in second. As nice as the Polar Lights GTO may be, it never looked right to me, and it mostly centers around its roofline in relation to the rest of the body. The slight "bow" in the body doesn't help either, but in the end it's all subjective as some may not see what I see wrong in the Polar Lights car.