611 replies to this topic

[Casey]

From this point on, let's please try to stick to discussing the Rat Roaster. Yes, the topic veered way off course, and I am guilty of participating, but those who want to read more about the kit should at least be able to find some good information here, despite having to dig through a few pages to find it. 

[johnbuzzed]

I've Read this topic with interest, and found a number of people who have made some interesting points. Like always I try not to comment on the model itself until I hold it in my hot little hands. Now that I have one here is my take on it;

 

First let me say I tend to come to the subject of scale fidelity and accuracy from a slightly different perspective. I've been building Models for the better part of 40 years. Had this kit, or anything close to its quality come out back in the '70s when I started building, it would have been met with accolades by the modelers. I'm old enough to remember when the typical kit merely bore a close approximation to the real car. Back then the only '32 fords available were the AMT (almost toy like) MPC (look at the recent  American Grafitti re-release) and the Monogram (Roadster only, fenders molded to the frame and no easy way to do a fenderless car) Take a look at any of these and tell me that even this compromised kit isn't far superior to any of those options.

 

Second, I grade kits on what I can build it into. I have absolutely Zero interest in the 1:1 Rat Roaster, but can understand that if that is what you want to build how you could be disappointed with the kit. Also I Can understand if you are disappointed that there is no I-beam axle as there are many cars I could build with that as well. That said this kit has some great stuff in it.

 

1. I love the wheels and tires. There are a lot of things I could do with those.

 

2. Buick Portholes, I see me adding those to my custom Hudson Hornet tonight or tomorrow.

 

3 The Engine. I can put that in anything from a t-bucket to a 69 Camaro. Heck the short block and tranny would be a great start on a pro-touring engine build.

 

4. The Front cycle fenders and bobbed rears will look great on a vintage hot rod build.

 

5. The seats look cool and would work in many period customs

 

6. the guitar is a nice touch

 

7.  The Gear shift is kinda cool too, and would look good in any hot rod build.

 

8. Having a stock firewall that isn't resin is nice too.

 

I'll probably buy several of these over the years because the parts are so nice. Is it a perfect replica of the 1:1? nope, but it is a really nice model kit. 

There's some real logic to this post.  I gotta agree with it.

[johnbuzzed]

Might not be helpful for painted/decaled wide whites, but I've had great luck with recalcitrant Revell tires by heating them up by means of sitting them on a sunny window sill, or setting them near (not ON) a furnace vent for a few minutes. I've heard some guys use the microwave for that, but I'm not gonna be 'some guys' in that case.   I can spend the time I'm not using kneading and squeezing the tires to soften them to work on some other tedious model-building task. That (kneading) also works well, by the way, I'd just rather be able to work on something else while the tires soften .

A dip of the tires in some real warm water might work, too.

[Chuck Kourouklis]

I've Read this topic with interest, and found a number of people who have made some interesting points. Like always I try not to comment on the model itself until I hold it in my hot little hands. Now that I have one here is my take on it;
 
First let me say I tend to come to the subject of scale fidelity and accuracy from a slightly different perspective. I've been building Models for the better part of 40 years. Had this kit, or anything close to its quality come out back in the '70s when I started building, it would have been met with accolades by the modelers. I'm old enough to remember when the typical kit merely bore a close approximation to the real car. Back then the only '32 fords available were the AMT (almost toy like) MPC (look at the recent  American Grafitti re-release) and the Monogram (Roadster only, fenders molded to the frame and no easy way to do a fenderless car) Take a look at any of these and tell me that even this compromised kit isn't far superior to any of those options.
 
Second, I grade kits on what I can build it into. I have absolutely Zero interest in the 1:1 Rat Roaster, but can understand that if that is what you want to build how you could be disappointed with the kit. Also I Can understand if you are disappointed that there is no I-beam axle as there are many cars I could build with that as well. That said this kit has some great stuff in it.
 
1. I love the wheels and tires. There are a lot of things I could do with those.
 
2. Buick Portholes, I see me adding those to my custom Hudson Hornet tonight or tomorrow.
 
3 The Engine. I can put that in anything from a t-bucket to a 69 Camaro. Heck the short block and tranny would be a great start on a pro-touring engine build.
 
4. The Front cycle fenders and bobbed rears will look great on a vintage hot rod build.
 
5. The seats look cool and would work in many period customs
 
6. the guitar is a nice touch
 
7.  The Gear shift is kinda cool too, and would look good in any hot rod build.
 
8. Having a stock firewall that isn't resin is nice too.
 
I'll probably buy several of these over the years because the parts are so nice. Is it a perfect replica of the 1:1? nope, but it is a really nice model kit. 

 

There's some real logic to this post.  I gotta agree with it.

 
Yup.  Don't look now, but I've been kinda with it all along.
 
The maturity in this post is certainly a breath of fresh air...

[azers]

I love it. To the point. And good information. Thats what i was looking for.

[Chuck Kourouklis]

 

 

Y'know, I remember somebody having posted notes at the '97 GSL about the Revell '32, saying it was nice but not accurate, with one of the less strident notes about the cowl claiming "2 inches to narrow".  

 

For the life of me, I haven't been able to figure out if he was trying to say the infinitive form of "narrow" - as in, you have to narrow the cowl by two inches - or if he really meant "TOO narrow".

 

Heh.  Maybe the Roaster's finally provided an answer on that...

[mrknowetall]

Uhhh. Not quite. That's the Revell '32 five window body next to the RR. The "old" Revell roadster body is a much closer fit to the Rat Roaster body, in terms of cowl measurement. "Old". REVELL RELEASED THEIR LINE OF NEW TOOL FORD '32'S BACK IN 1996. I CAN'T BELIEVE IT'S BEEN THAT LONG AGO. 17 YEARS! I'm still buying first round releases (donut box kits, and before) on the 'Bay. I can't help myself.

[Chuck Kourouklis]

*laughing*, yeah, 17 years baby! "Donut boxes", sheesh, ya had to remind us.  I 'member doing the fit-assessment review like it was yesterday, one of the best-building kits I'd ever experienced.

 

Fwiw, it was the three-window the guy was carping over. Guess I'll have a look tonight...

[Casey]

If someone has the '32 Speedwagon, roadster, 3W, 5W and RR kits to do a nose-to-nose-to-nose-to-nose-to-nose comparison, that would be awesome.

[G Holding]

I will try to dig up a Speedwagonx

[zaina]

Not that it matters but the model on the box doesn't have a distributor...another mess up

[Danno]

If someone has the '32 Speedwagon, roadster, 3W, 5W and RR kits to do a nose-to-nose-to-nose-to-nose-to-nose comparison, that would be awesome.

 

 

I have all of them except the Rat Roaster, so if you'll send me one, I'll get right on that comparison!     

[johnbuzzed]

It would have been cool to see the Rat Roaster kit in Tim Boyd's '32 Ford article.  I wonder if it would be possible to see a comparison like that of the '57 Chevy kits many years ago...

[Greg Myers]

Wasn't the Speedwagon the first kit in this wonderful series ?

[azers]

I believe the murray bodied three window was first. The speedwagon was second, the roadster was third, the sedan was fourth, the 5 window was fifth and last but not least is the rat roadster. Feel free to correct me if im wrong or i missed one.

[Greg Myers]

I don't remember a whole lot of banging on the Speedwagon when it first came out. I'm wondering now, why it was even kitted.

[Casey]

I believe the murray bodied three window was first. The speedwagon was second

 

The 3-window and Speedwagon both appeared in the 1996 Revell catalog, and the earliest copyright date I see for the Roadster is 1997.

[Michigan Madman]

I was thinking the Roadster was the first, but to confirm what Casey says- the 3-window and Speedwagon were in the 1996 catalog. No sign of the Roadster in that year's catalog.

[Chuck Kourouklis]

Yup.  Azers got the sequence exactly right.

[Michigan Madman]

Weird thing is, I was certain I got the roadster as a 13th birthday present, which would have been 1995. I hate being reminded my memory isn't so good!