Two Iconic ( and all we have ) kits with terrible chassis

[Greg Myers]

 

These two kits are certainly a conundrum.

"Promo" chassis with little or no detail. 

 

[disabled modeler]

I do not mind the promo style chassis kits...at times I actually prefer them on some models myself but that is just me...LOL..

[gtx6970]

1 hour ago, disabled modeler said:

I do not mind the promo style chassis kits...at times I actually prefer them on some models myself but that is just me...LOL..

Same here.

 

Many years ago I strived to achieve as much detail as I could on a build. As I've grown older . I've come to realize. I have to just build them .....and move on. It's not like I display then bottom side up anyway. 

 

I like looking at other people's build with lots of detail. I just no longer feel the need to do it on my own anymore.

 

Edited May 14, 2018 by gtx6970

[Snake45]

6 minutes ago, gtx6970 said:

Same here.

 

Many years ago I strived to achieve as much detail as I could on a build. As I've grown older . I've come to realize. I have to just build them .....and move on. It's not like I display then bottom side up anyway. 

 

I like looking at other people's build with lots of detail. I just no longer feel the need to do it on my own anymore.

 

+1 on all this. 

[disabled modeler]

I can appreciate all the work that goes into the highly detailed chassis on builds here but feel the same way...I figure one has to build them to make themselves happy with them.  Me..for one I hate the plastic axle pins that give over time letting the front look like it needs an alignment ...love the metal axles they never give up.   I am a fan of the curbside or promo like ones too...they can be built into very nice replicas like the old Craftsman series kit were.

[unclescott58]

I love th two kits above. I too never show my models upside down. So I'm not overly concerned with chassis details. If a kit has a detailed chassis, fine. A simple chassis? That's fine too.

[Mike999]

The '63 Vette is an easy fix if you want a more detailed chassis, and someone on this forum tipped me off about it. Snake45, I think.

The chassis from the MPC '64-'67 Vettes are nearly a drop-fit under the AMT body/interior tub.  The chassis from the '68-'77 Vettes are also very close and will fit with a little fiddling (since real Vettes used the same chassis until 1983, IIRC). 

The MPC "Night Stalker" '67 Corvette hardtop is probably the easiest to find and cheapest on eBay. I got one of those a few months ago for about $10, with this very conversion in mind.

For the Mustang, the detailed chassis from the AMT '67 kit is a pretty close fit.  I have one of those on the Eternally Unfinished Project Shelf, an original AMT '65 convertible body mocked up on the '67 frame.  The hardest work seems to be in the firewall/front fender liner areas.

Edited May 16, 2018 by Mike999
omit2

[StevenGuthmiller]

These kits are easy to find replacement chassis for.

Try finding a good replacement for a Johan '66 Chrysler 300!

As others have said, I don't have much of an issue anymore with these simple chassis plates.

A lot of the simplicity of these kits can be rectified with a few modifications & some updating under the hood.

Eliminating the screw posts on these promo type, screw chassis kits is a much more important mod in my opinion than worrying about the chassis.

That's job 1 for me when I start building one of these old kits.

 

Steve

[Snake45]

Yeah, the MPC '67 Vette chassis slides right under the AMT body, but it's a bit of a PITA to build because the molds are very worn and there is a LOT of cleanup of parts to be done.

The Revell '67 Vette chassis are better, but they're set up for a big block, so might need some adjustment for a 327.

[Jantrix]

For me it depends on the project and what I want for a particular model. In defence of the one piece chassis though, you really will improve your hand painting skills doing them, if you have the inclination to go beyond the flat black spray paint.

 

[Oldcarfan27]

I don't know how come some folks get soooo bent out of shape about the simple parts in old kits. They originally came from promos "fer cryin' out loud", and the companies never thought they'd get as much mileage out them as they have. I'm just glad so many of these 60s classics are still around to buy at all.

If not, chances would be slim we would have ever seen any of these tooled up today. We should be glad to have them even in their simplified form.

More ambitious builders can bash them with other modern kits for better detail.

[stavanzer]

Amen, Patrick.

[Chuck Most]

No big deal. The bodies on these cars (both in the models and the real cars) are the interesting part. (No, there's nothing interesting about early Corvette IRS). Unless you display your models on their roofs, I see no problem with poor chassis detail. 

[Greg Myers]

Okay, they did get a bunch of miles. It's time to get off their laurels and tool up something new / modern. 

These are both iconic vehicles and these kits are the only game in town ?

Tell me again how the chances would be slim on having two iconic vehicles such as these kitted.

Why should one be expected to pony up the price for two kits just to build a decent model, not to mention ending up with another kit full of parts that wouldn't be used at today's prices.

Just doesn't  make sense. Sorry.

Why be satisfied with mediocrity ?

Edited May 17, 2018 by Greg Myers

[Oldcarfan27]

44 minutes ago, Greg Myers said:

Okay, they did get a bunch of miles. It's time to get off their laurels and tool up something new / modern. 

These are both iconic vehicles and these kits are the only game in town ?

Tell me again how the chances would be slim on having two iconic vehicles such as these kitted.

Why should one be expected to pony up the price for two kits just to build a decent model, not to mention ending up with another kit full of parts that wouldn't be used at today's prices.

Just doesn't  make sense. Sorry.

Why be satisfied with mediocrity ?

Sometimes it seems hard enough to get the kit companies hear us about tooling NEW and UNIQUE cars that we don't yet have as model kits. I'm still waiting for a NEW mid 70s Chevelle or El Camino, or even Cadillacs from the same era.

As far as Corvettes and Mustangs, there are so many more choices to build and bash from, and most of us have these kits in our stashes already so it's not a great expense to have to buy them new again. And besides, they practically fall from the sky. If you just asked nicely, I'm sure there are fellow builder's that would be glad to help you find what you're looking for.

I personally wouldn't be interested in yet another 60s Corvette or Mustang - Revell has already scratched that itch many times over. It's like telling me we need another NEW tool of a 57 Chevy or 1st generation Camaro.

[disabled modeler]

20 hours ago, StevenGuthmiller said:

These kits are easy to find replacement chassis for.

Try finding a good replacement for a Johan '66 Chrysler 300!

As others have said, I don't have much of an issue anymore with these simple chassis plates.

A lot of the simplicity of these kits can be rectified with a few modifications & some updating under the hood.

Eliminating the screw posts on these promo type, screw chassis kits is a much more important mod in my opinion than worrying about the chassis.

That's job 1 for me when I start building one of these old kits.

 

Steve

Steve.... id be too happy just to have a Johan 66 Chrysler 300 HT....LOL...my dad owned one and I want to make a replica of his.  There are times where Ill de-tune a vehicle into a el-cheapo version with a 6cyl engine where separate  exhaust would be nice so I could put single ones on them but I am just too happy to have them in the fist place. 

[gtx6970]

9 hours ago, Greg Myers said:

Okay, they did get a bunch of miles. It's time to get off their laurels and tool up something new / modern. 

These are both iconic vehicles and these kits are the only game in town ?

Tell me again how the chances would be slim on having two iconic vehicles such as these kitted.

Why should one be expected to pony up the price for two kits just to build a decent model, not to mention ending up with another kit full of parts that wouldn't be used at today's prices.

Just doesn't  make sense. Sorry.

Why be satisfied with mediocrity ?

8 hours ago, Oldcarfan27 said:

Sometimes it seems hard enough to get the kit companies hear us about tooling NEW and UNIQUE cars that we don't yet have as model kits. I'm still waiting for a NEW mid 70s Chevelle or El Camino, or even Cadillacs from the same era.

As far as Corvettes and Mustangs, there are so many more choices to build and bash from, and most of us have these kits in our stashes already so it's not a great expense to have to buy them new again. And besides, they practically fall from the sky. If you just asked nicely, I'm sure there are fellow builder's that would be glad to help you find what you're looking for.

I personally wouldn't be interested in yet another 60s Corvette or Mustang - Revell has already scratched that itch many times over. It's like telling me we need another NEW tool of a 57 Chevy or 1st generation Camaro.

 

Exactly.

Ive never understood the hash and rehash of a kit because it has a simple chassis under it. Do you display builds with the bottom side up? Are contests your primary reason to build ? if so then costs are not a factor .

I would be willing to bet a vast majority of builders could care less what the bottom side looks like once completed.( within a reasonable effort )  I know I don't . I build for me and me alone. Once done and in my display case no one will see them except family and visiting friends . But I get to admire them , dust them and simply enjoy them anytime I want. Maybe even sit them on the table and make Vroom Vroom noises once in a while........ Life is good .

One has to remember its a RE_ISSUE of a kit designed in the 60s or maybe early 70s  nothing more , nothing less. 

So build it , enjoy it , be glad we have replicas of kits from our youth,,,no matter how simplified they are .

Carry on

 

[Art Anderson]

On 5/14/2018 at 12:46 AM, Greg Myers said:

 

These two kits are certainly a conundrum.

"Promo" chassis with little or no detail. 

 

Uh, that's because both kits were originally laid out and tooled in the 1960's, aimed at the-then principal market for model car kits--the 10 to about 15 or 16 yr old crowd, who at the time made up, by far the vast majority of model car builders.

Art

[unclescott58]

9 hours ago, Greg Myers said:

Okay, they did get a bunch of miles. It's time to get off their laurels and tool up something new / modern. 

These are both iconic vehicles and these kits are the only game in town ?

Tell me again how the chances would be slim on having two iconic vehicles such as these kitted.

Why should one be expected to pony up the price for two kits just to build a decent model, not to mention ending up with another kit full of parts that wouldn't be used at today's prices.

Just doesn't  make sense. Sorry.

Why be satisfied with mediocrity ?

I hope they never mess around and modify those old classic kits. I like them the way they are. Overall I find the chassis on most cars boring. Some kits get frustrating trying to get the details parts together. Especially those with working front suspensions. MPC's Corvettes from this basic era are good examples of this. They're a pain in the you know what to build. How many pins have I broke on those, trying to get the steering to work? Give me good solid metal axles, for a good solid chassis for my kits to sit on. 

[Oldcarfan27]

With all this being said, knowing how simplified these kits are, I'm that much more impressed when another builder builds a super-detailed model of one of these veterans! I do pay attention to how he did it, and I learn. So teach me, how it SHOULD look!

[StevenGuthmiller]

12 hours ago, Greg Myers said:

Okay, they did get a bunch of miles. It's time to get off their laurels and tool up something new / modern. 

These are both iconic vehicles and these kits are the only game in town ?

Tell me again how the chances would be slim on having two iconic vehicles such as these kitted.

Why should one be expected to pony up the price for two kits just to build a decent model, not to mention ending up with another kit full of parts that wouldn't be used at today's prices.

Just doesn't  make sense. Sorry.

Why be satisfied with mediocrity ?

Ok, so we could say this about how many "hundreds" of kits produced before the 80s?

Nearly every kit produced in the late 50s and 60s, with a few exceptions, had very rudimentary chassis, and a good majority of them had very simple engines, (if any at all) & most, up until the mid 60s had a basic 3 piece interior. (dash, steering wheel & tub with the seats molded in)

Does this mean that the kit manufacturers are derelict because they are not re-visiting & retooling all of these old kits?

We're very lucky that there are any American kit manufacturers left anymore!

Johan is extinct and AMT, Lindberg & MPC have all been rolled into round 2, a company which is basically as their name implies. A company that re-pops old kits & produces nothing new.

We are left today with Revell/Monogram & Moebius for the most part.

Exactly which of these hundreds of "sub-par" kits should be re-tooled & who will do it?

I think that we need to consider ourselves lucky that there is any subject matter available to us at all these days!

I for one am more than happy to deal with those bad chassis plates as long as I can still find the subject matter that interests me.

If I had to stick with only kits with modern detailed tooling, I would have quit the hobby long ago!

 

Steve

[Force]

As mentioned before the fix for these two kits are quite easy if you want more detail.
I can just talk for myself, I like well detailed chassis just because I like the challenge in more detail...and even if I don't show the chassis often and some things that don't show much at all, I know it's done and I had fun doing it.

[StevenGuthmiller]

31 minutes ago, Force said:

As mentioned before the fix for these two kits are quite easy if you want more detail.
I can just talk for myself, I like well detailed chassis just because I like the challenge in more detail...and even if I don't show the chassis often and some things that don't show much at all, I know it's done and I had fun doing it.

I will sometimes do the same if a suitable donor of those parts exists.

Many times they do not.

That's not going to stop me from building a great old kit that would otherwise have to be ignored.

 

Steve

[PeeBee]

You never had to work at getting the right "stance" with the simple chassis-with-metal-axles in these old kits, apart from perhaps adjusting the track width.  And, lowering or raising ride height could be simply and quickly achieved by selecting one of the three axle holes that were often provided in these kits.  

I don't display my models upside down, however if the chassis is interesting and perhaps part of what defines the car, like on an old ford w/dropped axle, halibrand QC, etc., or an F1/Indy car, let's say, then I do go for good and accurate chassis detail.  But, yeah, mid-year Corvettes and early Mustang (Falcon!) chassis were pretty mundane.

[Oldcarfan27]

That's what makes this hobby interesting, so much history, so much variety, so many styles.

If all the kits required a master builder to complete, that would become a detriment to newer builders just like simple kits are mundane to an experienced builder. But sometimes we all just want a break from the mega parts count, tax your eyesight and mental capabilities required for an enthusiast kit. Simple kits can be detailed out if you want them, that's why we are called "builders" and not "assemblers". It's the amount of creative input that you choose to improve the kit with. 

As for me, I'm just happy if the details and proportions that kit does include are accurate. The rest is up to me.