Jump to content
Model Cars Magazine Forum

AMT 32 Ford Tudor


alan barton

Recommended Posts

I have been fortunate to find two AMT Tudor bodies over the years and even though the modern Revell kit is a far better model, for nostalgia stakes I wanted to see how I would go building a 50's style rod  a with a contemporary twist.  I used the following components to get the result you see here.

Original AMT 32 Tudor body from the ancient Tudor/Willys double kit.

Chassis, fenders, hood and grill from 32 Vicky kit.

FE style engine from Vicky kit with aircleaner from Revell 32 Ford kit.

Interior tub built from two Vicky units, cut offset to create a longer length.

AMT Vicky custom" rear axle with "stock" rear spring

Dropped headlight bar and taillights from Revell 32 kit.

Steelies with AMT 50 Ford hubcaps. 

Fuel tank made from disposable razor cover

partsbox.com resin dropped front axle

I tried both the luggage rack and the spare tyre mount from other AMT 32 kits at the rear but it just turned it into a restored car so I left it with just a bumper. Colour is Testor's Classic black straight form the spray can.  Interior is Testors Fabric red.

I haven't built my Revell Tudors yet but for a quickie, I'm pretty happy with how the AMT version turned out.

Cheers, Alan

IMG_2471.JPG

IMG_2474.JPG

IMG_2477.JPG

IMG_2298.JPG

IMG_2291.JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow! That's an incredibly clean  tudor! Seems pretty accurate in terms of body shape, too. Great parts choices and tweaks (like the headlight bar, wheels etc)...probably as good as an AMT deuce can possibly look! Well done.

I thought the Tudor in the double kit had a section job and molded fenders?? Is this a different body, or did you return it to stock? That would be a ton of work...

I see you built it RHD too, that's cool :)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks great! Nice to see an original built considering the availability of the Revell kit. Despite the current crop of far more accurate Revell Deuce's there's just something about those ancient AMT kits. You nailed it with this one.

2 hours ago, Spex84 said:

I thought the Tudor in the double kit had a section job and molded fenders?? Is this a different body, or did you return it to stock? That would be a ton of work...

The original body wasn't sectioned, stock but channeled over the supplied chassis with a shallow custom interior. There were custom panels that were attached to lower body that gave the appearance of a sectioning. In the original issue the body has tiny locating pins on the body sides that disappeared in the only reissue as a full fendered Street rod.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks guys!  As explained above, the Tudor is not sectioned and I did no bodywork other than restoration of a mild gluebomb ( it really was in good nick) and opening up the rear wheel arches so that reasonably wide tyres would fit under the fenders.  The problem with all the AMT Deuces is the bottom of the body, the sills if you like.  For whatever reason, instead of having them roughly parallel (albeit curved) to the running boards, AMT made it sweep upwards towards the firewall.  I have found that dark colours go a long way towards hiding this anomaly on a full fendered car but I wouldn't dream of running one as a highboy or a channelled car - they just look awful!  I've also included a photo of the Tudor with it's hood fitted. I forgot to mention that I also used a resin copy of the Rat Roaster firewall as the stock AMT one s pretty average in detail!

My second body, one I had since I was a young teenager, had suffered many indignities in my school days including having the paint scraped off with a knife.  It was never going to be restorable into a factory fresh body so a few years ago I knocked up this old jalopy from the California Jalopy Association days.  My early butchery lent itself to the battered appearance of many of these cars.  I cut open the roof insert and made a small gutter to replicate the sheet metal of these old bodies.  The side rub rails or nerf bars help disguise that awkward sill that I spoke of. It is mostly AMT 32 parts with an AMT 40 Ford radiator and AMT 36 Ford wide five wheels - the rears are slightly wider versions from Fred's Resin Workshop when he was in business.

Cheers

Alan

 

 

IMG_2478.JPG

IMG_2485.JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anybody know what the difference is between the AMT sedan and the MPC version. I have a couple of these bodies and I just assumed they were from MPC "Switchers". I didn't even know AMT had made a sedan. Now I'm wondering which ones mine are. Only difference I can see is, one has a small notch taken out of the center of the rear wheelwells, the other one has a larger radius taken out of the same place.

I just thought they were the sedan delivery without the rear door and the window fillers. What's up?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Patrick, they are definitely two very different bodies from two different manufacturers and two different eras.  The AMT is from the early sixties and has the characteristic uphill slope along the bottom edge of the body.  The MPC item is from the mid seventies and has a more accurate lower edge but to my eye at least looks a smidge too tall and a freckle too narrow.  In other words, neither of them is perfect.

To tell which ones you've got, check out the lower edge.  If I get the chance when I get home form work, I will put up a photo of each one so you can tell.

Cheers

Alan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks everyone.  

I got sidetracked last night Patrick but will get to it tonight.  My MPC Tudor is an unfinished chop top but I also have a built MPC delivery so I will grab a photo of it as well.  Might even grab the current Revell body to join the party.

I agree Dennis, the right hand side is definitely the tough side.  I see the whitewall side representing a 59-62 era build while the blackwall side is much more contemporary - I see a lot of cars being built in Australia with this look, pretty much from the mid eighties onwards.

Cheers

Alan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I grabbed some photos on my phone before I headed off for work so that you can see the differences between an MPC Tudor or Delivery and an AMT Tudor.  The differences I see are as follows:

  • AMT door handle is in swage lines, MPC door handle is below them on flat section of door
  • MPC Body is taller at firewall and swage mark is higher as well
  • MPC has noticeably taller windows (as per the Delivery shot) Note that even though I chopped the MPC body A LOT it is still not much lower than the AMT at stock height.
  • From the rear, MPC bodies look much flatter sided and more upright.
  • From rear, MPC body has an exaggerated upwards arc to the swage line.
  •  

On the chopped Tudor ( I started this over thirty years ago!)  you can see that I didn't need to lengthen the roof.  On the front or "A" pillar, instead of shortening it by the amount of the chop, I cut a vertical notch into the A pillar after the roof was removed.  I then dropped the whole roof down inside that notch.  There was so much plastic there that I was able to reshape the front pillar to suit without any filler.  If anyone has any tips for sanding the window reveals accurately after a top chop I would love to hear them!

(Oh yeah, be gentle about my Delivery - it was built over 35 years ago and was my first spray can paint job ever.  Rather than rebuild her, I am waiting for the new re-issue, if it ever gets to Australia!)

Cheers

Alan

 

20180815_054748_001.jpg

20180815_054840.jpg

20180815_054935.jpg

20180815_055019.jpg

20180815_055036.jpg

20180815_055346.jpg

20180815_055400.jpg

Edited by alan barton
Spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair enough!  Patrick, this will mean you will get rid of the woody body that you didn't like and also put a much more competent chassis and fender unit under the Tudor body.  I am currently massaging an AMT Vicky body to fit the Revell fenders but there are three points to note, one of which I haven't quite resolved yet.

1.The AMT body hangs a bit low at the rear and interferes with the fuel tank.  I found the easiest option in the long run was to carefully cut the Revell fuel tank free from the chassis and lower it a couple of millimeters - easier than cutting down the body and having to rebuild the lower swage mark.  Haven't tried the MPC body yet.

2.You have to add a wedge shaped piece of plastic to the bottom of the AMT body to get it to sit level on the fender unit. Not hard but definitely time consuming to get nice bodywork.

3. The swage mark on the cowl won't quite line up with the swage on the Revell hood.  Still have to come up with a solution there.  Maybe a combination of AMT hood top with Revell hood sides - huh, just thought of that and now will have to wait until I get home to see if it will work!

Cheers

Alan

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...