Revell ‘29 Model A Roadster

[1930fordpickup]

I think the rear fender wells are moved up on this body.  Yes they are. I just compared the 2 bodies. The Revell body fits the AMT 29 Roadster fenders. There will be a gap at the top of the fender to fill on the body if you choose to use the Revell body.  

Edited March 21, 2020 by 1930fordpickup

[Richard Bartrop]

So if you've already got the AMT '29 roadster for the fenders, then you may as well use the AMT body too, though the Revell  body is a starting point if you want to go for a channeled look.

However, if you are making a hot rod, the Revell kit is still worth getting, because while the AMT kit may have the more accurate body, the Revell one still has the nicer everything else.

[Tom Geiger]

 

I built this when the kit first came out. It went together well and was finished before I knew it.

There are a few peculiar things about it. First are in interior side panels being attached to the rear fender wells. I’d like to be able to glue those in place prior to building the body, but on this one I was just careful gluing them in place. 
 

Those side panels also have tabs that attach to the floor board. You can see those on the finished model, as you can see in the above photos. Next time I will fill those in.

Also the side panels appear to have a finish inside the trunk. And there are two parts that glue inside the sealed trunk, very nicely detailed modern fuel tank and battery. This all works well if you open the trunk on your model, but otherwise save those parts! I’ve since used mine on other builds where the are very visible. No doubt there is/was a version planned with an open trunk. 
 

 

[Earl Marischal]

What are chances of the new kit being available over the counter here in the U.K.?

steve

[Luc Janssens]

55 minutes ago, Earl Marischal said:

What are chances of the new kit being available over the counter here in the U.K.?

steve

Good question, as the regular '70 Dodge Charger kit is (per Revell AG) also unavailable on the EU market.

[tim boyd]

In some ways, the Revell body is actually more accurate of the two.  One example is the ribs inside the rear fenderwell.  AMT got it wrong, Revell got it right.  The best of course would be to combine elements of both bodies.....just my 2 cents.....TIM 

Edited March 22, 2020 by tim boyd

[stavanzer]

Re Fenders:

If Revell had tooled the kit with 'em, the Wails of the masses, want Fenderless would be heard on every board for the next ten years.

So, Revell chose (rightly, IMHO) to make a Hot Rod kit, Fenderless. Classic in style, and looks, and using one of the most visually distinctive motors of all time, (Buick 401 Nailhead) and one of the most common motors in Rods (Chevy 350 Small Block). Cue the Low Key Wailing about Fenders and the lack thereof.... Also, I've heard some guff about the lack of a Ford Power Plant. I retain the faith that when these kits were being planned (what, about 10 years ago?), that the team doing it, had made plans to eventually use a Ford Motor of some kind. They had to be aware of how huge the impact of the 5.0 H.O. motor in the '32 kit had been. It is clear to me, that these Model A Kits were both a Business Case, and a Labor of Love. So, I am guessing that in the fullness of time, we modelers will see ALL the items that were designed into the tooling from the start.  I have no clue what these features and parts will be. But Given the people involved in the creation of this tooling, and their pedigree as True Believers in both Street Rodding and Models, that the wait will be worth it.

 I love these kits, and as was said about the '32 kits, some 20 years ago, you can build these kits by the dozen, and never build the same car twice. These are truly "Pringles Kits" You can't just build one!  I am truly glad that they have returned, and I'll be snagging a few more when I can.

[Snake45]

4 minutes ago, alexis said:

If Revell had tooled the kit with 'em, the Wails of the masses, want Fenderless would be heard on every board for the next ten years.

So, Revell chose (rightly, IMHO) to make a Hot Rod kit, Fenderless. Classic in style, and looks, and using one of the most visually distinctive motors of all time, (Buick 401 Nailhead) and one of the most common motors in Rods (Chevy 350 Small Block). Cue the Low Key Wailing about Fenders and the lack thereof.... Also, I've heard some guff about the lack of a Ford Power Plant.

My Dad saw it coming: 

 

[stavanzer]

Amen, Snake!

[Tom Geiger]

1 hour ago, alexis said:

Also, I've heard some guff about the lack of a Ford Power Plant. I retain the faith that when these kits were being planned (what, about 10 years ago?), that the team doing it, had made plans to eventually use a Ford Motor of some kind. They had to be aware of how huge the impact of the 5.0 H.O. motor in the '32 kit had been.

 

The direction Revell had taken with all their new tooling was to create new, high detail kits of iconic vehicles that would be reissued over and over and wouldn’t go out of style.  Kits people could build over and over.

The series of 32s was very successful and designed for kit bashing within the series. The Model As are an extension of that series, and if things had gone better there would no doubt be more variations by now. 
 

Anyone whining about more engine options can pull the Ford engine, or any other parts and options, from the 32s.

 

Edited March 23, 2020 by Tom Geiger

[1930fordpickup]

The 32's had a small block Ford,  Flat Head Ford and the Early Hemi if I remember correctly. Now the A's have the Buick and the Small Block Chevy. 

We can pull the Oldsmobile out of the nice kit that is not to old.  Just need a new Caddy, and poncho engine. 

[Ace-Garageguy]

5 minutes ago, 1930fordpickup said:

 ...Just need a new Caddy, and poncho engine. 

Absolutely nothing wrong with the Revell Pontiac and Caddy parts pack mills...

Or the AMT Pontiac either...

[1930fordpickup]

You are correct Bill. I was just talking about the new engines that have been tooled up for these kits. 

[stavanzer]

1 hour ago, Tom Geiger said:

The direction Revell had taken with all their new tooling was to create new, high detail kits of iconic vehicles that would be reissued over and over and wouldn’t go out of style.  Kits people could build over and over.

The series of 32s was very successful and designed for kit bashing within the series. The Model As are an extension of that series, and if things had gone better there would no doubt be more variations by now. 
 

Anyone whining about more engine options can pull the Ford engine, or any other parts and options, from the 32s.

 

I agree, Tom.  You have hit the nail on the head. And that design philosophy is why I have great expectations for the future of this tooling. It may not happen as fast a we would like, but this Model A tooling has already proven that it is a License to print money. No business will willing turn that down.

[Roadrunner]

I don't see why Revell couldn't have just done both fenderless and full fendered in the same kit, as they most certainly did in their sweet little '32 Ford 5-window coupe, the very next kit I'm likely to purchase (only because it's full fendered). As to some division between two camps regarding what's classic, I was unaware of that, or to what degree that is perceived as any issue at all for that matter. In the meanwhile, I'm still stuck with the same dilemma, do I buy this fenderless version to use some decent parts on a full fendered version, or not. I probably eventually will, but I still see it as a bit of a shame that I'd even have to resort to that at all.

[bobthehobbyguy]

13 minutes ago, Roadrunner said:

I don't see why Revell couldn't have just done both fenderless and full fendered in the same kit, as they most certainly did in their sweet little '32 Ford 5-window coupe, the very next kit I'm likely to purchase (only because it's full fendered). As to some division between two camps regarding what's classic, I was unaware of that, or to what degree that is perceived as any issue at all for that matter. In the meanwhile, I'm still stuck with the same dilemma, do I buy this fenderless version to use some decent parts on a full fendered version, or not. I probably eventually will, but I still see it as a bit of a shame that I'd even have to resort to that at all.

I think it was an economic decision on the fenders. They made the choice to provide a channeled and highboy option. That required 2 sets of interior side panels, two different frames,  and assorted other pieces to make those options work. 

[Roadrunner]

2 minutes ago, bobthehobbyguy said:

I think it was an economic decision on the fenders. They made the choice to provide a channeled and highboy option. That required 2 sets of interior side panels, two different frames,  and assorted other pieces to make those options work. 

That makes sense to me. Thanks a bunch for that info.

[Luc Janssens]

39 minutes ago, bobthehobbyguy said:

I think it was an economic decision on the fenders. They made the choice to provide a channeled and highboy option. That required 2 sets of interior side panels, two different frames,  and assorted other pieces to make those options work. 

I don't know much about hot rods, but what's the trend in the real world with these kind of vehicles?

Anyway...did a quick look at what's in the box old vs new and besides the engine swap I see that both chassis and tailpipes have been retooled and so do the frames which contains the interior parts..

Edited March 23, 2020 by Luc Janssens

[Ace-Garageguy]

52 minutes ago, Luc Janssens said:

I don't know much about hot rods, but what's the trend in the real world with these kind of vehicles?

These days it's really pretty much anything goes, from where I'm sitting.

Thankfully, the unsafe-at-any-speed crapp-rod craze is dying, and though there's still interest in the barn-find fake patina look, the cars are mostly well engineered.

"Traditional" cars are still popular, but now tradition seems to include any look from the '30s through the '90s...except the Easter-egg colored billet-encrusted period.

Full-fendered cars always played second fiddle to the lakes-inspired fenderless cars (and still do) but today, just about anything that's well-constructed and well proportioned will be relevant.

For me, I find it hard to top the look and presence of the best of the early cars, like this late 1940s build by Doane Spencer...

A little more rubber on the rear of this car (radials all around, naturally---but you can get them that have the right look, almost), a 5-speed gearbox or automatic, and late-model power...it would still be as much of a head turner as it was in 1947.

[Tom Geiger]

1 hour ago, bobthehobbyguy said:

I think it was an economic decision on the fenders. They made the choice to provide a channeled and highboy option. That required 2 sets of interior side panels, two different frames,  and assorted other pieces to make those options work. 

Just like there are a battery and fuel tank inside a sealed trunk, there were no doubt plans for future fendered vehicles. And we’ll see how Revell moves forward 

[Richard Bartrop]

The reworked fender wells do preclude a set of stock fenders, and you do have to rework where the fenders meet the body if you want them to fit properly.  In any case, the decisions have already been made, and numerous ways have already been pointed out on how to get the Revell roadster closer to what you want.

Bill, a fenderless Deuce like the Doane Spencer roadster is a classic look.  There's a reason it's spawned so many copies. and if Revell ever decides to bring back the Deuce roadster,  I would not be unhappy  if they went  the traditional route.  Am I wrong in yhinking that the chassis parts from the '29 Roadster are interchangeable with the Revell '32?  It would still have the coil spring rear,  but the wheels and finned brakes would look good  on a Deuce.

Edited March 24, 2020 by Richard Bartrop

[Ace-Garageguy]

27 minutes ago, Richard Bartrop said:

...  Am I wrong in yhinking that the chassis parts from the '29 Roadster are interchangeable with the Revell '32?  It would still have the coil spring rear,  but the wheels and finned brakes would look good  on a Deuce.

The '32 frame (and running gear) from the current Revell '29 is a natural under any of Revell's '32 kits, and the narrowed rear rails make for some interesting possibilities.

HOWEVER...though I'm 99% certain the wheelbase is the same, the '32 frame in the current '29 kit is slightly narrowed to work under the '29 body shell.

The upside is that if you want to build a channeled '32, you're halfway there with the frame we're discussing.

I'm with you in pining for a traditional buggy-sprung version of at least one of the Revell '32s.

If they ever need a consultant to make sure they get it right, I'm available.  

[alan barton]

I agree with everyone here, the Revell 29 and 32 series kits just might be the greatest hot rod kits ever!  The range of options and degree of swapability is a godsend to hot rod modellers.

I don't believe engine choices are a big deal with a hot rod because you can put whatever you like in one  No-one seems to have mentioned that both series included modern automatic transmissions - another bonus seeing as how most kits over the years have either included a four speed or heaven forbid, the old 39 Ford 3 speed crash box.  Again , so nice to have options.

The coilover rear ends ( and to a lesser extent the airbag rear end in the 32 series) finally gave us some  well crafted modern hot rod hardware to fit under any rods.  There is no shortage of Revell buggy spring and rear crossmember parts out there if you need to backdate.

Now I'm fussy about my roadster bodies because I drive a real one.  The AMT body is definitely the more accurate one but after all these years the swage lines are getting a bit soft on the rear quarters and the tank to cowl line is a nightmare to try to make an inny instead of an outie.  At least the rear wheel arches are simpler to fix, just glue some short strips of Evergreen into the slots and they look great.

The Revell body is very good as well as being nice and fresh. The HUGE advantage over every Model A kit ever made by anyone is the brilliant windshield frame and posts.  No-one else ever got this right.  It is easily adapted to the AMT body and makes a huge improvement.

The radiused rear wheel wells are frustrating because practically no-one in the full sized rodding world does that.  If the Revell designers really wanted to have those raised arches on the channeled car, they could have simply moulded in a cut line on the inside of the quarter panels ( remember when AMT and MPC used to do this?) and then included the raised arches as part of the channelled car interior panels.  Would need no more plastic and no more parts but would have made the kit even more versatile.

The other bit that I can't understand and can't think of a reason for is the 30 style firewall in the 29 body.  I always thought Revell was simplifying their moulds by using one universal firewall but when the coupe turned up we saw that wasn't the case at all. The firewalls in the roadster and coupe kits are entirely different yet both based on the 1930 design.  I will again go out on a limb and say that this has NEVER been done on a real car!  Why would you - you just lose engine room in the already tight confines of a 29.

These things aside, they still get my vote.  I have 6 roadster kits, two coupes and will probably buy more.

Cheers

Alan

Edited March 24, 2020 by alan barton

[Richard Bartrop]

I have a frame from the '32 Coupe and the '29 roadster, and you are right about the frame being narrowed on the roadster.  The roadster rear suspension looks similar to the '32, but it looks like all the holes and attachment points are slightly different, so there goes the idea that you could make a mostly traditional Deuce without any new tooling.  Still easy peasy for the kit basher.

And I think there are plenty of people who would love a more traditional rear, but until Revell decides that this is worth doing,  they are still selling their nicely detailed '48 Ford.  You can cut the rear crossmember out of that, and you also have that very nice torque tube rear, a detailed flathead,  backing plates for the wheels, and various vintage parts to dress up your traditional ride.  It's as close to a traditional hot rod parts pack as you are likely to see.

I'm definitely getting another Revell  '29 roadster.  It's worth getting even if you don't like the body, or even if you don't like Model A's

 

[Ace-Garageguy]

1 hour ago, alan barton said:

The radiused rear wheel wells are frustrating because practically no-one in the full sized rodding world does that.  If the Revell designers really wanted to have those raised arches on the channeled car, they could have similar moulded in a cut line on the inside of the quarter panels ( remember when AMT and MPC used to do this?) and then included the raised arches as part of the channelled car interior panels.  Would need no more plastic and no more parts but would have made the kit even more versatile.

The other bit that I can't understand and can't think of a reason for is the 30 style firewall in the 29 body.  I always thought Revell was simplifying their moulds by using one universal firewall but when the coupe turned up we saw that wasn't the case at all. The firewalls in the roadster and coupe kits are entirely different yet both based on the 1930 design.  I will again go out on a limb and say that this has NEVER been done on a real car!  Why would you - you just lose engine room in the already tight confines of a 29.

These things aside, they still get my vote.  I have 6 roadster kits, two coupes and will probably buy more.

Yup. 100% with you on all counts.

Not too hard to fab a rear crossmember from sheet stock (bottom of page 3 of this build thread):

 

Edited March 24, 2020 by Ace-Garageguy