# AW TJ R5 '57 Chev... whzzzzzzzz...



## ParkRNDL (Mar 20, 2002)

ok, the rear end of the '57 Chev in this release was KILLING me. i mean, i had Gabriel Hijackers in my old Nova back in high school, but this is RIDICULOUS...










and it looks even worse on a skinny tire chassis...










so out came the Dremel. i didn't touch the front post, but the window piece interfered with the gearplate, so I had to shave the mounting surfaces off the bottom of the windows and glue them up inside the roof. while I was there, I opened the side windows (the easier to oil you with, my dear). and I had to trim the headlight piece behind the front screwpost for front axle clearance--apparently even without shortening the front post, pivoting the rear of the body way down brought the front axle in contact...










there's still a little rake... the goal was not to slam this way down, just to make it look somewhat more realistic. fwiw, there's LOTS of slam room left if you're into that sort of thing (Scott?  )

now THIS one would make a fine ragtop. kinda thinking about that as we speak... or maybe I'll cut up the red one from the last release now that I have this one... never liked the blower sticking thru the hood anyway...

here's a few more angles:




























--rick


----------



## Bill Hall (Jan 6, 2007)

Sits juuuuust right now!


----------



## noddaz (Aug 6, 1999)

Interesting how the roof looks too short for the rest of the car...


----------



## Bill Hall (Jan 6, 2007)

Agreed Scott.


----------



## tjd241 (Jan 25, 2004)

noddaz said:


> Interesting how the roof looks too short for the rest of the car...


Well.. For our puroses... If it's gonna be off one way or the other I think it's more palatable as too short rather than too tall. Shortening the posts would _*really*_ accentuate an over inflated roofline. Looks far better the way Rick trimmed it up though. Funny how the designers are blissfully unaware of our out-of-the-gate "alterations" like this. nd


----------



## AfxToo (Aug 29, 2003)

The front quarter shot looks pretty good, but the side and rear quarter shots make the rear bumper look like it was hand formed with JB Weld - by me. Better foundation for the JATO canisters, I guess.

I have to admit, looking at the first few pictures, especially the full on broadside with stubbified roofline, made my mind flip-flop between this:

http://www.57classicchevy.com/

and this,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_Metropolitan

I think there are undeniably some elements of each in the final result, which is too bad since the 57 Chevy is so iconic and it's been modeled about 8 million times already.


----------



## coach61 (Sep 6, 2004)

Much Better...nice work!


Dave


----------



## noddaz (Aug 6, 1999)

*Well...*



tjd241 said:


> Well.. For our puroses... If it's gonna be off one way or the other I think it's more palatable as too short rather than too tall. Shortening the posts would _*really*_ accentuate an over inflated roofline. Looks far better the way Rick trimmed it up though. Funny how the designers are blissfully unaware of our out-of-the-gate "alterations" like this. nd


Actually I meant the length of the roof compared to the rest of the car.....


----------



## roadrner (Jul 21, 1999)

Looks a little cartoony from the rear. Looks like they could have spent a little more time on the rear bumper/taillight details.  rr


----------



## BRPHO (Aug 1, 2006)

Something just isn't right with the way that back bumper looks

It looks too thick to me for some reason????

It needs to be shaved down a bit it regards to the overall thickness.

It shouldn't be that wide from the end of the rear quarter to the overall thickness of the bumper......

Just my thoughts.......

I think removing it and shaving some of it off the backside where it touches the body would correct the issue.


Wayne :thumbsup::thumbsup:


----------



## ParkRNDL (Mar 20, 2002)

noddaz said:


> Interesting how the roof looks too short for the rest of the car...


I have a theory about this...

I think many of these (the ones that aren't Aurora clones, anwyay) are based on existing diecasts shortened through the doors to adjust for length.

Back in the Johnny Lightning/Playing Mantis days, I think they started to base new models on diecast tooling. I'm aware that you can't make metal bodies and plastic bodies in the same mold, but I think maybe they shared the models that were used before the moldmaking step. Going back to the '70 (?) Nova that JL did, when you sit the slot car next to the diecast, you'll see that many of the details are proportioned exactly the same--except the slot car is shortened through the doors and rear wheelwells. There are other examples, but I don't have them right in front of me... if you have any JL diecast to compare, take a look. maybe the '64 GTO? the '69 Corvette? the Impalas? the '64-'67 Corvettes? i'd be interested in hearing if anyone thinks there's something to that...

When Round 2 split off from Johnny Lightning, maybe TL retained the rights to base slot cars on the tooling from the diecast cars he had developed up until that point...



AfxToo said:


> The front quarter shot looks pretty good, but the side and rear quarter shots make the rear bumper look like it was hand formed with JB Weld - by me. Better foundation for the JATO canisters, I guess.





roadrner said:


> Looks a little cartoony from the rear. Looks like they could have spent a little more time on the rear bumper/taillight details.  rr





BRPHO said:


> Something just isn't right with the way that back bumper looks
> 
> (snip)
> 
> Wayne :thumbsup::thumbsup:


agreed. the rear bumper is WAAAAY oversimplified. shame it's not chrome, too... but it looks like the front one is part of the body (i'm at work so I can't verify) so they couldn't chrome the fromnt one anyway. wonder if there's a good diecast of the car that could donate a better plastic rear bumper?

--rick


----------



## Bill Hall (Jan 6, 2007)

While hidden in the 3/4 views, the side views clearly show that the hood and trunk sections are proportionally matched at a glance. HOWEVER! That pimple of a roof is no where near the ballpark. Looks like some zit cream and and a Weird Jack vert insert might be the ticket.


Yeah the rear bumper is a bit ....gulp....pinewood derby, hahahahahahaha; but I'll wager someone like rr or one of the other foilmasters could plaster it pretty inspite of it's humoungouslygargantuangigantism.


----------



## roadrner (Jul 21, 1999)

I'm not sure foil would help. Even the rear quarter chrome flair is thick. If you look closely, at 1:1 scale, the trim on the side would stick out about 3 inches. Guess I'll see when they show up.  rr


----------



## alfaslot1 (May 27, 2005)

*amphibicar*

the way this body has been produced it would be easier to model a '60s amphibicar than a proper '57 chevy.I'm working on one now.


----------



## resinmonger (Mar 5, 2008)

alfaslot1 said:


> the way this body has been produced it would be easier to model a '60s amphibicar than a proper '57 chevy.I'm working on one now.


I'll wait for your verson, Greg.


----------



## slotcarman12078 (Oct 3, 2008)

Working on an amphibicar???? Coool!!! Hey Coach, you still have that blue track??? I just had an idea.... :tongue: J/K

Utherjoe


----------



## roadrner (Jul 21, 1999)

alfaslot1 said:


> the way this body has been produced it would be easier to model a '60s amphibicar than a proper '57 chevy.I'm working on one now.


Now I know where I've seen those taillights before.  rr


----------

