39 replies to this topic

[CEKPETHO BCE]

Has anyone ever built this kit? Does it have the same chassis as most other Revell 32 Fords? Any known issues with it? Built pictures are welcome.

Here is the picture of the kit in question:
(pictures are not mine)

[Jantrix]

Yes, it shares the same chassis and running gear. The front tires are a little tooooo small for my taste and it comes with only the Ford small block.

[Ace-Garageguy]

Yes, it is the same chassis as the other Revell '32 Fords. It's a nice kit, a good starting point to build a "street rod" style Deuce. You can't build a stock '32 out-of-the-box, or a traditional hot-rod, as stock-style suspension isn't included. Front suspension is a dropped tube axle with transverse leaf spring, disc brakes and 4-link radius rods. Rear suspension is Ford 9", with disc brakes, what appear to be airbags, and long control arms. The engine is a small-block Ford V8, with an automatic gearbox. The frame is very nice, and lends itself easily to modification into a traditional hot-rod. If you elect to build an open-wheel (no fenders) car, the front frame horns need to be filled to look correct. It's an all-around great kit, and a fine source of parts.

[CEKPETHO BCE]

^Thanks, but could you elaborate about not being able to build a traditional hot rod out of it because of the suspension?

I was going to throw in a flathead from a Revell '32 Tudor, '40 dash and steering wheel from Revell's '32 5-W Coupe, and steelies with tires from the same 5-W kit. Is this the only kit with "wrong" suspension for a traditional rod, or do all Revell's '32 Fords have the same issue?

Thanks

[Fat Brian]

All of the newer Revell 32 kits have a modern suspension with disc brakes all around and rear air bags. You will have to find period correct speed parts to build a old style hot rod. What era are you trying to replicate?

[Ace-Garageguy]

All the Revell '32s have the same issue with the suspension, but at least one kit ( the '32 5-window coupe, for sure ) has optional "hairpins" for the front axle, which are more correct for a traditional ('40s - '50s ) rod instead of the 4-link setup. A real traditional rod would most likely have an I-beam front axle instead of the tubular style, as well. The optional dropped front axle (with wishbones) in several of the excellent Revell Model-A kits is perfect, and has working steering with drum brake backing plates. (The model A backing plates aren't really right if you're being picky, as most fast '32 Fords got converted to '39 or later Ford hydraulic brakes. The backing plates from the Revell '40 can be made to work and look right.) The '32 kit discs aren't traditional.

The rear end in the '32 kits will look fine from the side and top, but if you want the correct look from the bottom and rear (for a '40s -'50s period car), you will need to convert the rear suspension to transverse leaf and radius rods, or split wishbones. The rear axle from the Revell '40 Ford is a good starting point (it also has the correct period drum brakes) but the rear crossmember will have to be modified to make it work. You can splice in the '40 crossmember. A quick-change rear end looks even better, but it takes a model A or T spring and crossmember (just as in a real '32) to get the clearances you'll need.

Edited by Ace-Garageguy, 21 July 2012 - 04:49 PM.

[CEKPETHO BCE]

Thanks for all that information.

I was planning on doing 50's style. I understand what you're saying about the suspension now. All that time I spent on HAMB and didn't even realize the suspension on these kits was wrong. I guess you learn something new every day.

[Bernard Kron]

The roadster kit was the first of the Revell Deuce series. It's fairly clear that at the time it was released it was pretty much a stand alone offering, a pretty good rendition of a late billet era style car. Fashion has now eclipsed it as gradually it has been found to have its faults, mainly because more Traditional styles are now very much in vogue. As a result the wide front tires, the wheels and the four link suspension setups are things that modelers have to correct when they try to back date this kit. And frustratingly subsequent releases have pretty much failed to address any of these issues.

The front wheels and tires, regardless of style (Torq Thrusts on all subsequent releases starting with the 3-window, plus pseudo Kelsey Hayes wires on the Tudor and steelies on the 5-window) are still too wide, the kits all come with the same small-block Ford setup with a second engine in the Tudor and 5-window kits (flathead and "hemi" respectively). If you want to do a buggy spring rear end you will have to install the appropriate crossmember and spring. At the front the backdate to proper 50's style would require a more traditional I-beam unit. The most commonly used source for both these conversions is one of the Revell '29 Ford RPU "rat rod" kits or the Revell '30 Ford sedan kit. As mentioned above, you'll also have to delete the disc brakes and substitute the appropriate "juice" (hydraulic) brake setup. There are other details that need attention, too, like the fact that the dashboard has a cassette player (!) and air conditioning outlets (!!) and that the kit doesn't come with a gas pedal and the motor has an automatic transmission.

Here’s work in progress pic of the Revell Deuce chassis with the buggy spring conversion mentioned above:



Another approach is to not fight the base kit too hard and go for a more contemporary look, but I still think the front wheels and tires are a disaster. I also think the kit benefits from lowering the front suspension to give it more rake, which is easily done by shaving the front spring. Here's a picture of a more contemporary roadster based on this kit, done in the style of the late Barry Lobeck with the front end corrected but otherwise largely from the kit:


If you build a full fendered car many of these details are invisible and the car can be easily backdated through careful attention to wheel and tire selection and proper stance. The kit doesn’t come with fenders but they can be found in all the other variants and fit with no modifications. Here is a simple build where I kept most of the standard kit but paid attention to stance and wheel and tire choice.

[CEKPETHO BCE]

I would like to start off by saying that I have seen many of your under glass and WIP threads; your models building skills and style inspire me.

I appreciate your input. I was planning on raiding my '31 Tudor for parts, but wasn't sure how to go about it. Is there a WIP thread for your buggy thread? I'd love to watch it.

[southpier]

Bernard,

any pictures of the little blue roadster in your signature?

thanks

[rmvw guy]

I agree the front tires look too small on this kit, my two photos show the differance with a switch on the black '32. My only suggestion, if you use the flame decals color test the yellow for the grill, which I didn't. It builds up nice box stock in my opinion. I would really like to build one more traditional with a flathead like you are talking about. Hope to see more of yours.

[Ace-Garageguy]

Although this is one of the venerable AMT '32 frames, the modifications to the Revell unit will be similar, and if you have the '31 Tudor kit to pirate parts from, you're halfway home. As these are scale models of real cars, the procedures are identical to what's encountered when you set out to build a full size '32 based hot rod. ( Just as an aside, I currently build 1:1 period rods at a nationally known shop for a living, so I'm telling you the real deal.)

In this shot, the rear crossmember and floor area have been replaced with scratchbuilt pieces to allow this car to utilize a '37 Ford rear end. This is more-or-less what you'll have to do on your Revell '32 to get somewhere to hang the rear buggy spring.



This is the Revell '37 truck axle in place. Wishbones from the '32 will be added shortly. The '37 wishbones couldn't be used because they're too long, too wide and interfere with the frame rails. This sort of mix-and-match is, again, exactly what you encounter building a real one. It's important to remember that although the model-T all the way through the '48 Fords had similarly designed rear suspension, there were differences in the placement and width of the wishbones, the spring hangers and the spring design and height. As you do your mods, you will have to make note of what these differences are and how they will effect your wheelbase and ride height. NO two hot rods will ever be exactly the same, especially period cars that were built from junkyard sourced items rather than catalogs.



This shot shows the raised center of the model-A ('28-'31) rear crossmember and spring. This is necessary to install a quick-change rear end in a '32. Though this is again an old AMT '29 kit, you already have this crossmember and spring in your '31 Tudor kit, and the swap into the '32 is straightforward. It requires considerable careful measurement and fitting however, being aware of the things I mentioned above...wheelbase, ride height and wishbone location.



Also included in your '31 Tudor kit is a Model-A rear axle. This is very similar in appearance to the '32 and later, though they are entirely different in reality. Same look but different parts. This is an acceptable unit to use for a period-look car. You may have to adjust the length of the driveshaft to fit your engine / transmission of choice. Remember too that the earlier cars (4-cyl and flathead powered) had "closed" driveshafts with only ONE universal joint in the front. All forward driving force was taken out through this driveshaft and then through the trans, engine and motor-mounts. The trans that comes behind your flathead will probably be correct for this look, to hook up as in reality with the '31 driveshaft/axle unit.

The correct brake backing plates can be sourced from a number of kits. The Revell '40 and '48 Fords have them, as well as the Monogram 1/24 '32 roadster street rod with the small-block Chevy. There are nice ones in the Monogram 1/24 woody, with spindle details that can be used to work in conjunction with the working steering of your '31 Tudor axle as shown here.



Glad to see you taking such an interest in doing a little more to get a correct car. Though it certainly is more work, I think you get a real feel for what the early hot-rodders did by taking the time and making the effort to get the details dialed in.

Edited by Ace-Garageguy, 22 July 2012 - 08:47 AM.

[Bernard Kron]

..,.. Is there a WIP thread for your buggy thread? I'd love to watch it.

Unfortunately I've never done a WIP for a buggy spring rear end. However, I think that that Ace Garage fella just gave us a lotta ,good stuff on that subject!

Bernard,

any pictures of the little blue roadster in your signature?

thanks

Here's a link to the Under Glass for that build: http://www.modelcars...100&hl=bellypan And some pics. It uses the Revell kit front axle but it doesn't have a "real" rear axle because it's all hidden under the full bellypan...

[Ace-Garageguy]

PS. By the late '50s, dropped tubular front axles were becoming available and some guys made their own, so the '32 kit front axle can stay but the 4-link has to go. "Split wishbones" (or else "hairpins" like the option in the 5-window kit WHICH ARE ON BERNARD'S BLUE CAR) were common on cars with dropped axles, to correct the caster of the front end. Your '31 kit has acceptable wishbones, and to "split" them, you simply cut them apart in the center and mount them to the frame rails instead of under the engine, with ball-joints on the cut ends. Look it up on the HAMB.

Bernard's first photo above has, I believe, a shot of the Revell '31 rear end under a fabbed rear crossmember for a Revell '32, and the I-beam front axle we've been yammering about.

PPS. I still LOVE your little blue belly-panned roadster, Bernard. Now THAT's a hot rod !!!

Edited by Ace-Garageguy, 22 July 2012 - 09:07 AM.

[CEKPETHO BCE]

I found this on HAMB. Maybe someone will be interested.
http://www.jalopyjou...36377&showall=1

[Bernard Kron]

Thanks for the link, Andrew. That's some great detail to refer to!

Also, I was re-reading some of William's (Bill's?) stuff and I think the other kit worth considering as a parts source is the AMT '29 roadster kit. Now out of production and increasingly difficult to track down, I buy them whenever I encounter them at a reasonable price. Besides the '29 A roadster body shell which, for me, when mounted on Deuce rails with a Deuce grill shell, makes for the ultimate roadster (the A-V8), the kit also yields accurate model A front and rear crossmembers which, when combined with Deuce rails, get you solidly in the pocket for that 40's/50's traditional rod thing.

Oddly, I have never done an accurate postwar 50's style 1932 Ford highboy roadster. All the Deuce highboys I have completed have used the Revell 4-link rear with the air bags removed (I can't stand them...) and the tubular front axle axle setup (gernerally with several leaves removed from the spring - the "Tim Boyd modification"). I have run out of 5-window hairpins so I tend to use the 4-bars... (lazy). The only two times I mated a buggy spring rear end to Revell deuce rails it was on a couple of A-V8's. This thread makes me think I should make room for a full-on period correct 50's Deuce highboy. Ah well, another one to add to the list...

One other comment. The aftermarket is an excellent source for parts for this sort of project. Early Years Resin makes nice 40's Ford style backing plates for the juice brake look and ThePartsBox.com makes a fantastic 4" drop I-beam dropped axle setup that they have recently improved by casting in a metal reinforcing wire. The problem with resin front axles has always been that, while they look great intially, the tend to sag over time under the weight of the car. The wire corrects this. I still prefer to work in srtyrene when I can but I generally keep a stash of resin bits as well. I wish somebody would make chromed versions of the Revell 5-window hairpins in the aftermarket (Modelhaus are you listening?).

Edited by Bernard Kron, 22 July 2012 - 11:38 AM.

[southpier]

thanks for the pictures and link on the blue roadster

[Fat Brian]

If you don't mind that the grill isn't 100% correct the Monogram 32 still has the banjo rear end and a more correct front end.

[CEKPETHO BCE]

What front and rear shocks should I use? Right now I have no rear shocks, and not sure if the kit front shocks are a accurate for a 50s style rod.

Thanks for all the input by the way. You guys are awesome

[Fat Brian]

The kit shocks should be, shocks haven't changed much since they were first adopted.