'26/'27 turtle deck T hot rod kits requested

[Phildaupho]

As suggested by Matt and Tim Boyd, I for one would love to see new '26/'27 turtle deck T hot rod kits both as a Roadster and a Coupe with the option of building full-fendered with hood or not. The only styrene kits I am aware of from the past were the AMT '27 Phaeton and the Revell Buttera Sedan/Delivery. I am also aware of a few resin 27's. I think a '26/'27 turtle deck T kit would be very popular. Maybe if enough of us post our desire for  a '26/'27 turtle deck T kit, it just might happen.

‘26/‘27 turtle deck T hot rods? With period-correct drivetrain and suspension? Oh yeah. "

*****************************

Matt....not this weekend, at least, but I'm pushing this one really, really hard with one of the kitmakers.  Others are doing the same. 

Recommend you (and anyone else who agrees with Matt) to let the kitmaker of your choice know of your desires now....

TIM 

[Richard Bartrop]

Ideally an option for a stock 26-27 roadster would be nice, but something tat builds up into a traditional style roadster would still be very welcome.  Options for Deuce and track roadster fronts would certainly work, as would a nice set of Kelsey-Hayes wire wheels.  Now injection moulded wired wheels don't always look that great.  but I thought Jo-han had a great solution for that.  If you look at their Gold Cup classics, the spokes have a rectangular cross section that looks close to scale thickness when viewed n the finished model, but there's still enough plastic to do the job.   Photo-etch spokes are certainly an option, especially with the premium prices that modelers are increasingly expected to pay.

 

 

 

[tim boyd]

If done correctly (e.g. original OEM parts breakdown) this could be done both as a '26/'27 turtledeck and as a '26/'27 roadster pickup kit.  That's one of the angles I've been pushing....

TIM

 

[Ace-Garageguy]

If done correctly (e.g. original OEM parts breakdown) this could be done both as a '26/'27 turtledeck and as a '26/'27 roadster pickup kit.  That's one of the angles I've been pushing....

TIM

 

I hope they listen to you.

I've been wondering for many years why a styrene '26 / '27 was never offered...and I've been vocal about it.

The little T body on either '32 or A-bone rails was and is an iconic real-hot-rod package, and as such, is a natural to extend the appeal of the underpinnings in Revell's MIA A-bone kits.

 

Edited November 11, 2017 by Ace-Garageguy

[alan barton]

Would this be a different angle?  Tool up  26/27 turtledeck roadster and  coupe bodies, and then release a pair of kits sitting on the chassis x 2 from the Model A coupe roadster release and another pair sitting on the fenders and running gear from the old Buttera series.  That way you get 4 spinoffs straight out of the gates!

 

Cheers

Alan

[Ace-Garageguy]

Would this be a different angle?  Tool up  26/27 turtledeck roadster and  coupe bodies, and then release a pair of kits sitting on the chassis x 2 from the Model A coupe roadster release and another pair sitting on the fenders and running gear from the old Buttera series.  That way you get 4 spinoffs straight out of the gates!

I'd vote for that in principle...BUT...though the bodies and the tube-frame under the Buttera-based T kits are well-scaled, for some inexplicable reason, the smallblock Ford engine, trans and other guts are significantly UNDERSCALE.

It's something that, if put forward as-is, will have the folks who understand and demand "scale" screaming bloody murder.

Revell already has scale-correct tooling for a smallblock Ford in their '32 kits, so getting it right shouldn't be too terribly hard.

AMT / R2 also has STOCK '27 T underpinnings in the "Police Car" phaeton and its relatives (I believe it started life with the double kit including the XR6).

Edited November 11, 2017 by Ace-Garageguy

[Spex84]

I'd love to see a '27 in either roadster or coupe form. I've been toying with the idea of 3D modeling and printing a coupe body but haven't gotten around to investing the time.

Partially as "reference material", and partially because I wanted the Jag suspension and cool sedan body, I just picked up the Buttera '26 Sedan and immediately noticed the engine issue. Interestingly enough, while the Buttera engine seems short in the block, and also not very tall (perhaps due to the low-clearance oil pan?) the valve covers fit perfectly onto Revell's deuce-series ford mill.

I think the early Revell Ford A and T kits are sweet...fiddly, but they just look "right". That goes for the '29 pickup, '30 Tudor, '26 T Sedan...a coupe with the same attention to proportion and detail would definitely float my boat

[Ace-Garageguy]

I just picked up the Buttera '26 Sedan and immediately noticed the engine issue. Interestingly enough, while the Buttera engine seems short in the block, and also not very tall (perhaps due to the low-clearance oil pan?) the valve covers fit perfectly onto Revell's deuce-series ford mill.

Unfortunately, the Buttera engine block scales out to be a full inch shorter (length) than the '32 kit engines. The heads are a full 1.5" too short.

The height from the oil pan rail to the top of the block is about .5" (scale) shorter on the Buttera engine than the '32 versions.

The oil pan itself is about 1.5" short (front to rear) in the Buttera kit too.

This isn't a deal breaker to the garden variety modeler, obviously, and I don't go around measuring these things just to stir up trouble.

But the fact is that I've been looking at greasy bits and fast things professionally for the better part of the last 50 years, and immediately, the engine in the Buttera kit looked wrong to me...just as the underscale "new tool" Ala Kart engine did, the exhaust-port spacing on the nailhead engine in Revell's '29, and the discrepancies between two of Revell's representations of the exact same 6.1L Hemi engine in two contemporary kits, the Magnum and Challenger. It probably doesn't help that I'm also a designer and artist, and have a well developed sense of proportion.

And inevitably, when something looks wrong to me, my apprehension is borne out when I put the calipers to whatever it is.

Funny story...I once walked into an aircraft hangar to look at a brandy-new Cirrus SR22. I immediately remarked that it was longer than the previous version of the airplane, and I thought the difference was in the cowling. The owner disagreed vehemently, so I suggested we just measure the damm thing. Sure enough, it WAS 3/8" longer. I had instantly been aware of a 3/8" difference...on an airplane that's 26 feet long.

Like I said, I don't do it to stir up trouble, but I also believe that accuracy matters...in every field...and if part of a kit designer's job description includes "measuring", he can damm well be expected to get it right.

And WHY the underscale engine? I have no clue. Just as in the "new tool" Ala Kart, the correctly scaled engine WILL FIT in the engine bay. It's tight, just as it is on a real one (in both cases) but it DOES fit.

Maybe the powers that be should just hire me to look at their first 3D-printed pre-tool-cutting models. If I like the proportions, being the prickly anal-retentive SOB I am, you can be pretty sure nobody is going to have any hairs to split on down the road.

[LDO]

I would also love to see a '26/'27 T roadster kit. I'm not picky about what frame it's on. Just make an accurate body and I'll put it on whatever frame strikes my fancy. 

 

A '27 pickup sounds cool, too.

[alan barton]

Ace, I couldn't agree more about the undersized Ala Kart hemi and the Buttera smallblock.  Until the Revell 32 series arrived, the only one that looked right to me was the Windsor out of the Monogram 55 F100.  The Buttera Windsor added a whole new meaning to the term "small-block" and you didn't need a tape measure to see it!  Fortunately it looked bearable in a T or A but you could not use it in a larger car with a clear conscience. Same goes for the few V6s out there.  I also build dirt tackers and bought quite a few ASA kits - when I could I picked the V6 version because it is such a nice sized engine to use in Anglias or track T's.  The few that came out in stock kits had been put in the shrinkerator!

Cheers

Alan

[tim boyd]

Some of you may recognize the name Bill Bozgan.  He wrote a number of articles for Scale Auto and is a Ford fanatic to the nth degree. 

He's now retired from the company but works part time with the Ford Archives activity. 

Bill was a key behind the scenes shaker on the Revell Model A project, and he (like me) thinks a '26/'27 T Turtledeck is a slam dunk kit idea.  He is a highly respected historic Ford expert in the eyes of the model car companies, and you can be sure that he has (and will continue) to advocate for this idea.  TIM

[El Caballo]

 

‘26/‘27 turtle deck T hot rods? With period-correct drivetrain and suspension? Oh yeah. "

 

X2 They are roomier than a Fad-T and is on my bucket list to build 1:1. A buddy let me drive his and I fell in love with it.

[Art Anderson]

Actually, the funny part of this idea is:  The very first "sell sheet" from AMT Corporation, in late 1963, for their then upcoming '27 T 3 in One Trophy Series kit showed not the touring car that was kitted, but a ROADSTER!

Art

[Bernard Kron]

Add me to the list, even though the main body is generally available from the aftermarket, the lack of decent interiors, windshields, etc. has made using one largely the domain of the dreaded "Advanced Modeler. Interestingly a stock '27 Turtledeck would be, IMHO, rather obscure and a poor seller, and thus the stock parts tooling would be somewhat of a waste, if I'm right.* So, indeed, the kit is a golden opportunity for Revell to, at last, "get it right" hot-rod-wise. I mean, how many times must we gripe about no-longer-in-style suspension bits, ugly shallow steelies, wide front tires, wretched sky-high stances, and/or over-stylized niche models with useless interiors, hoods, etc? This is an open car so I won't discuss unfortunate chops... In any case there are plenty of resources to refer to to nail the current, Post-90's New-Traditional style. Almost everyone on this thread has discussed it. And Revell has yet to do it right. In my opinion, If for once they nailed it the kit would be legendary. But, equally, I remain dubious that they would, not because they can't, but simply because they haven't up to now. When it comes to hot rods the aftermarket is a thriving world of folks correcting Revell's mistakes...

*The thought occurs to me, however, that if tooling up a stock representation enforced the discipline of getting the proportions and details of the basis 1:1 correctly represented then I'm all for it!

[Ace-Garageguy]

How cool would it be to see Revell tool up a set of Ardun heads to go on their V8-60 from the Midget kit, and stick them in a box with all the bits to build this?

                                                                                  

Edited November 13, 2017 by Ace-Garageguy

[Phildaupho]

 

 

 

                                                                                  

Not sure how I lost your text but I agree an Ardun equipped V-*-60 is a very cool looking engine and would be an excellent choice for a '27 T track-roadster

Edited November 13, 2017 by Phildaupho

[tim boyd]

Couple comments.....

1) the AMT announcement of a '27T Turtledeck first appeared c.1960 in the instruction sheets of several of their kit introductions that year.  The kit that actually materialized, of course, was the '25T Double Kit, not the '27 Turtledeck.  (I've not seen the 1963 sell sheet Art referred to above, which eventually resulted in the '27T Tub/XR-6 Double kit...).  ..

2) while I would agree that some Revell hot rod kits have missed the mark to varying degrees (mostly minor, but a few significantly),  my view remains that two of their prior kits - the original Buttera '26T (undersized engine notwithstanding) and the original 3 '32 Ford street rod kits from 1996 and 1997 were incredibly spot on as new kit introductions at that time.  As regards that oft-criticized Buttera 289 V8, keep in mind that in the real car, that engine is a very tight fit in a 1/1 scale T engine compartment.   Given the scale thickness of the hood side panels formed in styrene (instead of sheet metal),  a kit development designer could either undersize the engine or oversize the body.  They made the right choice.   

TIM

 

Edited November 14, 2017 by tim boyd

[Ace-Garageguy]

  Given the scale thickness of the hood side panels formed in styrene (instead of sheet metal),  a kit development designer could either undersize the engine or oversize the body.  They made the right choice.   

No.

I generally check my facts prior to making remarks, and years ago, I'd tried the fit of the engine from the Revell '32 Fords in the Buttera T. It fits just fine. Tight, but fine. Like in any engine swap in full scale, some things, like placement of accessories (alternator, etc.) need to be addressed. Perhaps a deeper bump in the firewall, or a short water pump (which is available in 1:1 too). Maybe shaving a tad off the headers....but in a quick mockup, none of those things appear to be necessary. The correctly-scaled ENGINE fits just like it does in the real car. And I just checked it again, just now...just like I'd do if I were doing a real engine swap, of which I've done at least 100.

Scaling down the ENTIRE engine WAS NOT the right choice.

[tim boyd]

• Bill....OK.....as has sometimes been the case in the past, we agree to disagree.  But thanks for relaying your experience; next time I have the two kits out I will try it for myself.  TIM 

Edited November 14, 2017 by tim boyd

[Ace-Garageguy]

• But thanks for relaying your experience...

  While we're on the subject of kit-designers' rationales for getting things wrong, as you're an industry insider, you're probably the only person here who might have a rational explanation for these two conundrums:

1) Why was the '34 Ford that was popped out to (apparently) give more legs to the Buttera T underpinnings so underscale? EVERY panel on the thing is wrong, and the overall size makes it suitable for a '34 Fiat, but not a Ford.

                                                                                 

2) Why is the hood on this otherwise quite useful kit a couple of scale inches too short (lengthwise)? (It's another one I've measured very carefully relative to the real cars) 

                                                              

 

 

[Muncie]

  While we're on the subject of kit-designers' rationales for getting things wrong, as you're an industry insider, you're probably the only person here who might have a rational explanation for these two conundrums:

1) Why was the '34 Ford that was popped out to (apparently) give more legs to the Buttera T underpinnings so underscale? EVERY panel on the thing is wrong, and the overall size makes it suitable for a '34 Fiat, but not a Ford.

                                                                                 

2) Why is the hood on this otherwise quite useful kit a couple of scale inches too short (lengthwise)? (It's another one I've measured very carefully relative to the real cars) 

                                                              

 

 

not Tim, but does it really matter why?  this is a topic about making a request to kit manufacturers for a 1926 to 1927 roadster kit...

[Mark]

  While we're on the subject of kit-designers' rationales for getting things wrong, as you're an industry insider, you're probably the only person here who might have a rational explanation for these two conundrums:

1) Why was the '34 Ford that was popped out to (apparently) give more legs to the Buttera T underpinnings so underscale? EVERY panel on the thing is wrong, and the overall size makes it suitable for a '34 Fiat, but not a Ford.

                                                                                 

2) Why is the hood on this otherwise quite useful kit a couple of scale inches too short (lengthwise)? (It's another one I've measured very carefully relative to the real cars) 

                                                              

 

 

The '34 on the box doesn't look undersize...maybe it's because the box art mockup is cobbed together from a Monogram '34!  They should have done the undersize '34 as a two-door sedan, they could have called it a Model Y ('32 English Ford, that predated the '34 styling).

Revell probably cheated the Buttera T engine to make a kit that the average kid could actually build.  Most kits were being sold at stores like K-Mart back then.  I remember when that sedan kit first came out (saw it at K-Mart, now that I think of it!) , it had photos of the actual car (but not the model) on the box.  I don't think it sold well, as Revell repackaged it almost immediately with photos of a built model on the box.  Revell kits had a reputation as being fiddly and difficult to assemble, my guess is they were trying to create new items that would not give that impression.  The first issue sedan kit (with the photos of the 1:1 car on the box) don't often turn up at swap meets, and really never did for that matter.

[tim boyd]

  While we're on the subject of kit-designers' rationales for getting things wrong, as you're an industry insider, you're probably the only person here who might have a rational explanation for these two conundrums:

1) Why was the '34 Ford that was popped out to (apparently) give more legs to the Buttera T underpinnings so underscale? EVERY panel on the thing is wrong, and the overall size makes it suitable for a '34 Fiat, but not a Ford.

                                                                                 

2) Why is the hood on this otherwise quite useful kit a couple of scale inches too short (lengthwise)? (It's another one I've measured very carefully relative to the real cars) 

                                                              

 

 

Those are both excellent questions - in the first case, the '34 body was downsized to fit the shorter '26T wheelbase of the Buttera kit tool.  I recall thoroughly chastising Revell for that at the time.  Not only that, but the original box art issue of this kit did not show the body that was actually in the kit, it was a faux buildup cobbled together from prior '34 kits from other manufacturers - I believe it was the Monogram but I don't have the box handy to look at right now.  (Update - I see Mark already pointed this out above....) 

In the case of the second question, on this one  you and I are in 100% agreement.  I pointed this out in a kitbash article I did using this kit a few years ago for Scale Auto (I made mine a fenderless coupe with a corrected wheelbase).  The too short front clip and the very misshapen grille shell are hard to fathom given how nice the rest of the body is in this kit.  

TIM 

Edited November 14, 2017 by tim boyd

[Ace-Garageguy]

not Tim, but does it really matter why?  this is a topic about making a request to kit manufacturers for a 1926 to 1927 roadster kit...

The idea of putting a '26 / '27 T body on the old Buttera chassis tooling was suggested. I pointed out that there were scale discrepancies with that kit, and implied that basing a new kit on an old kit with underscale bits would be, to me, a deal breaker.

Tim chimed in with WHY, in his opinion, the bits in question were underscale.

So, since poor scaling is somewhat endemic in the industry, and a plea for a new kit is being discussed, I thought it might be interesting to explore what reasons might crop up to make the new offering (if it gets offered) subject to scaling errors as well.

 

 

[tim boyd]

Bill got me going here...it's always (at least for me) risky to trust my memory of a kit I built 42 years ago (this one was a "clear the desk/first weekend you could buy the kit" start to finish build back in '75). 

Here are some photos of the engine in the engine compartment.  The engine compartment (including the steering column extension into the engine compartment on the driver's side, and the alternator on the passenger side, just barely clear the hood sides.   You can also see that from underneath, this is a very tight fit.  Any added width to the engine would have made it not buildable.  Added length to the engine might have worked - possibly - although pushing the front cover/fan belt forward would have probably caused interference with the alternator/hood side.  

But what really intrigues me is that I pulled out a Revell '32 Ford 302 Windsor V8 to compare.  I don't have a Revell '26T 289 complete engine as a stand alone build, but comparing the 302 to the 289 short block only, the dimensions appear essentially identical.  Which leads one to speculate - if the '26T  289 is undersized, is the '32 Ford 302 also undersized?  Guess I need to do a full build of a new full standalone build of the Revell '26 T 289  and compare it to the 302 W in the last photo....

 

Edited November 14, 2017 by tim boyd