Archive
Return to Index
Read Responses
deck lid is too flat, and lacks the curvature between the tail lights. And then there's the tail lights themselves. Horrible LOL *NM*
In Response To:
Yes. Also, the top of the wheel opening is too rounded / radiused. It should be flatter at the top. And the bottom of the quarter behind the rear wheel should be more parallet to the ground, not as upward sweeping as it approaches the rear bumper. *NM*
()
Messages In This Thread
Andy was asking about the issue with the AMT 1968 rr rear quarter compared to the Johan 69 rr rear quarter. Here are 2 pics comparing the 2. Some people don't see a difference. I see a difference. .......... *PICS* .....
other than the hood, the entire AMT body is garbage *NM*
My sentiments exactly. *NM*
Rear wheel opening is shorter, lower quarter panel behind the wheel doesn't tuck inward at the bottom. Also, the "eyebrow" at the top should be a bit sharper *NM*
Yes. Also, the top of the wheel opening is too rounded / radiused. It should be flatter at the top. And the bottom of the quarter behind the rear wheel should be more parallet to the ground, not as upward sweeping as it approaches the rear bumper. *NM*
deck lid is too flat, and lacks the curvature between the tail lights. And then there's the tail lights themselves. Horrible LOL *NM*
For some reason, Ertl cheaped out and didn't use clear red taillights. '66 Nova didn't have them either *NM*
Scott...thanks for the pics which explain the differences, here in Oz any JoHan kits let alone body shells are like gold....lol....I'll eventually build these 2 AMT kits I have tho' its good to see where corrections could & should be made....thanks.. *NM*
