Stacey David's Rat Roaster by : REVELL

[southpier]

speaking of '32 firewalls ........... why do they all have an open slot on each side so that light shows between it and the body?

[johnbuzzed]

Overall, I'm still pretty stoked just that Revell took the time to do a rare single car subject that doesn't have numbers on the side. I'm not in love with this particular rod, but I like it enough to have picked one up. My issues are more with the tooling quality. Twenty years ago it would have been great but it pales slightly compared to the recent Revell stuff. The bigger problem was that my chrome was awful. Warped trees, white shadows and a blotchy topcoat. Replacements are still a few weeks away, so plan B turned out to be this, a car with numbers on the side.

This is a WIP shot of Sgt. Rat, box stock except for the decals and the shifter. I had clearance trouble with the fan motor also

I really like this one, Sam. I think it's more... appropriate than the original car. Along the "Sgt." lines, I would like to see Revell invest some $$$ and do a GOOD replica of Sgt. Rock; maybe a 2-in-1 kit.

[mrknowetall]

Nice build!

[Ace-Garageguy]

I wouldn't hold my breath, but you never know. I can see Revell doing a full fendered '32 roadster at some point, along with a '32 pickup. I'm sure they have other subjects in mind away from the 1932 genre. Just my guess. I'd rather see them do a line of Model A street rod kits, which has been a hot topic in the 1:1 street rod world for more than a few years. Again, I'm not holding MY breath on that wish either.

You can already build a full-fendered '32 roadster using all Revell parts. The roadster body fits the fenders in the 3 and 5 window kits with a little work.

What they NEED to do is a generic traditional chassis with front and rear suspension and axle options. I've offered to design it for production to fit their existing bodies, but no one seemed to notice. Many MANY rods are built on '32 rails, and having an injection molded-alternative to the expensive resin that's available currently could up the demand for the existing-tool kits as well.

As for model A streetrods, Revell produced a '30/'31 sedan delivery, a '30/'31 woody, and a '28/'29 roadster / closed-cab pickup, (ALL of these have been released multiple times, in multiple versions and lotsa different box-art) and are readily available. ALL of them on a GREAT A-model chassis with nice stock and dropped I-beam front ends. Any of the OTHER 1/25 Model A (like the AMT '29 roadster) kits will fit the excellent Revell chassis.

As far as what-fits-what-perfectly-out-of-the-box...come on man, hot-rodding, whether in 1:1 or in 1/25 scale is about MAKING STUFF FIT that's not designed to work together.

Edited February 7, 2013 by Ace-Garageguy

[Brett Barrow]

Overall, I'm still pretty stoked just that Revell took the time to do a rare single car subject that doesn't have numbers on the side. I'm not in love with this particular rod, but I like it enough to have picked one up. My issues are more with the tooling quality. Twenty years ago it would have been great but it pales slightly compared to the recent Revell stuff. The bigger problem was that my chrome was awful. Warped trees, white shadows and a blotchy topcoat. Replacements are still a few weeks away, so plan B turned out to be this, a car with numbers on the side.

This is a WIP shot of Sgt. Rat, box stock except for the decals and the shifter. I had clearance trouble with the fan motor also

That car works so much better with that paint job and the dulled-down engine parts. I like it! Got me thinkin'... Thinkin', thinkin', thinkin'...

Edited February 7, 2013 by Brett Barrow

[Brett Barrow]

You can already build a full-fendered '32 roadster using all Revell parts. The roadster body fits the fenders in the 3 and 5 window kits with a little work.

What they NEED to do is a generic traditional chassis with front and rear suspension and axle options. I've offered to design it for production to fit their existing bodies, but no one seemed to notice. Many MANY rods are built on '32 rails, and having an injection molded-alternative to the expensive resin that's available currently could up the demand for the existing-tool kits as well.

As for model A streetrods, Revell produced a '30/'31 sedan delivery, a '30/'31 woody, and a '28/'29 roadster / closed-cab pickup, (ALL of these have been released multiple times, in multiple versions and lotsa different box-art) and are readily available. ALL of them on a GREAT A-model chassis with nice stock and dropped I-beam front ends. Any of the OTHER 1/25 Model A (like the AMT '29 roadster) kits will fit the excellent Revell chassis.

As far as what-fits-what-perfectly-out-of-the-box...come on man, hot-rodding, whether in 1:1 or in 1/25 scale is about MAKING STUFF FIT that's not designed to work together.

Yeah, but Revell's A's are 50+ years old, fiddly, and pretty much slap worn-out. It's high time for a modern A...

[Ace-Garageguy]

Yeah, but Revell's A's are 50+ years old, fiddly, and pretty much slap worn-out. It's high time for a modern A...

Interesting perspective. I've never found any of them to be particularly fiddly or worn out. They DO take some skill and patience to assemble...well. What am I missing? I thought skill and patience were parts of what we do. The AMT 'A' kits are easier to build, but with less accurate results.

Edited February 7, 2013 by Ace-Garageguy

[Casey]

speaking of '32 firewalls ........... why do they all have an open slot on each side so that light shows between it and the body?

This gap, where to locating pin on the backside of the firewall meets the inside corner on the body's cutout?:

[mrknowetall]

That's always been somewhat of an issue, but an easy fix. I added some material to the lower body side in this so-so pic...

[Brett Barrow]

Interesting perspective. I've never found any of them to be particularly fiddly or worn out. They DO take some skill and patience to assemble...well. What am I missing? I thought skill and patience were parts of what we do. The AMT 'A' kits are easier to build, but with less accurate results.

Sorry, I've got my businessman's hat on right now and not my modeler's hat...

Revell's A's remain good sellers despite their age, especially when they threw in the new-tool "rat rod" wheels and tires. And they're certainly not a kit I would recommend to a beginner. Plus there's nowhere to go with them regarding future variations. None of AMT A's are in current production. Revell and AMT aren't making any money off eBay or swap meet sales. So, from a purely business perspective, a new-tool Model A series would be a wise choice.

[Casey]

I'm focused on anoth project I'm trying to get done by next week so I haven't moved on to the chassis as yet, but an initial examination indicates that the RR frame is very close to, if not identical to, the older issue chassis.

The RR chassis/frame/floorboard piece appears to be a copy of the same part in the '32 Ford 5-window Deuce kit (which is what I have have on hand for comparison), but the mold half joints are slightly different, as are the ejector pin locations. The sides of the engine mounts on the Rat Roaster are slightly beefier and run the full width of the mount, but for all intents and purposes, the two chassis should interchange with little or no modification necessary.

[Casey]

If you want to use the inset firewall front the other kist there's a gap you'll have to fill because the edge in the bodywork for the firewall is much slimmer on the Rat Roaster.

Tried it (the RR firewall) on the 5-window. Needs the side locators trimmed off, but the top locator lines it up right. The other hoods will need some trimming to work with the firewall, as the RR hood is very thin on the back edge.

It looks to me like using the RR firewall on the Revell Dueces (at least my test subject 5W) isn't going to be as straightforward as I thought it might be. I don't know how close to stock or correct(?) any of these firewalls are, so with that said, here are some more comparison shots of the RR and 5W firewalls and hoods:

Here's a face-to-face firewall comparison, but the general difference is the RR's firewall is more squared off, while the 5W's is more rounded, especially at the top corners. The 5W's firewall is also more tapered toward the bottom:

Looking at the hoods next, we can see the rabbeted rear edge on the RR's hood Brett mentioned, while the 5W's hood remains a consistent thickness:

The below image shows the slight width difference between the two hoods, a difference which is confirmed when comparing the cowl area of both bodies:

What this all means is the RR's firewall will not simply swap over to the existing Deuce body shells without any other modifications. That was probably expected by most, but in order to use the existing Deuce hoods and hood sides (the RR sneakily avoids the hood side fit issues, as it include no hood sides) you'll need to either re-contour the perimeter of the RR firewall or modify the hood and hood sides you plan to use with the RR firewall. I don't think adding a small, thin, consistent rabbet to both the Duece hood and side panels will be an easy task, and my fear with modifying the RR firewall is that the perimeter bead will be lost at the upper corners, leaving the firewall looking, well, hacked up looking for lack of a better term.

Hopefully you can make out the perimeter bead in this comparison shot:

This (poor quality, low contrast) pic shows the how the RR firewall look on the 5W body, with emphasis on the top edge:

Here's a pic taken a bot lower, in which you can see the difference between the RR's firewall sides (much straighter) and the 5W's cowl (more curved, with a more "bulge"):

There is good news, though. The grille shells should interchange without any modification:

[Bernard Kron]

Thanx for the updates Brett. I hadn't gotten that far in my comparisons but this is pretty bad news since the hood in the RR is so specialized. It implies that there is no stock hood available from another kit for the RR since the cowl is significantly wider on the RR. Slimming down a stock hood is not a job I would look forwad to. As I said earlier, the more I look the less I like...

[Casey]

those dang tires are so nice! And they fit the AMT 40 ford steelies!

The tires may be the best part of the kit and are probably the best tires Revell has produced in a long, long time. $20 is a fair chunk o' change to drop on only a set of tires, but these might be worth it to some. That said, I wonder if this new style of one-piece wheels and matching tires is going to turn a lot of people off, as once they get the kit home, the tires out, and dry fit the wheels they planned to use with the tires, the incompatibility with traditional kit wheels becomes painfully obvious. No matter how thin the wheel's lip/rim, they aren't going to look right when used with these tires. Some people won't notice and others might not care, but to me, it sticks out like a sore thumb.

I have no idea if the tires are true to the 1:1 tires Mr. David used on the Rat Roaster, but they are nicely molded, crisp, a are totally lacking the "re-blended" mix of not-quite-fully-mixed vinyl I've noticed with some of AMT's slicks ('76 Gremlin M&H's for one):

Front tires:

All together now:

I placed some 1/25 scale wheels in the tires, so you can see how the wheel lips are still very prominent and noticeable, even when fully seated:

The below AMT Minilite 8-spoke wheel had he thinnest lip I could find, and still, not good:

And a wheel test fit inside the rear slicks:

I'm sure with a lathe or with lots of careful, consistent sanding your wheel of choice could be snugged down a little closer to the tire's sidewall, but this is a bit of a buzzkill for me. I realize these new style tires and wheels are here to stay, but it's gonna take time to get used to them.

As with the tires, the wheels are gorgeous, too. I don't think there have ever been a set of 5-slug (or any lug-mount style for that matter) Halibrand spindle mount Sprint style street wheels, but there are now:

[Casey]

I just picked up a Rat Roaster a few hours ago. As indicated in Dr. Cranky's unboxing, some of the parts are surprisingly flashy for a new tool kit.

Danny, what's the date code on the topside of the floorpan on your kit?

Mine, and the only flash on the entire kit, around the transmission case:

[Draggon]

Mines got the same imprint, and the same flash. Just compared chassis, and the reveal just before the rear wheel wells is different on the two kits, as are the rear suspension mounts. The kick up at the front of the frame seems different too, the frame rails ahead of the grille shell are more curved on the original highboy version. But the real question is why would Revell tool up an all new kit? The differences are so subtle, no one would ever notice. Well, except for us!

[Ace-Garageguy]

......... I don't think there have ever been a set of 5-slug (or any lug-mount style for that matter) Halibrand spindle mount Sprint style street wheels, but there are now:

Thanks for posting the pix. No way I'm springing for tires I'll have to custom-machine wheels to fit. No RR kits for me.

By the way, I know I'm kind of pedantic, but "spindle mount" wheels don't HAVE bolts. They mount to the...wait for it...spindle. All that retains them is the wheel bearing nut / washer.

And "Sprints" don't have the center rib between holes like the "Salt Flats" wheels do.

[johnbuzzed]

I think the real question should be: "If Revell tooled up an all-new kit, why is the kit not more accurate?" "Close enough" is not good enough, especially when the real deal is in all probability readily accessible for research and reference. The guy's name and picture are right there on the box cover, as is the real car- would he have said "No" to a good, close-up looksee by the people from Revell?

[Ace-Garageguy]

I think the real question should be: "If Revell tooled up an all-new kit, why is the kit not more accurate?" "Close enough" is not good enough, especially when the real deal is in all probability readily accessible for research and reference. The guy's name and picture are right there on the box cover, as is the real car- would he have said "No" to a good, close-up looksee by the people from Revell?

Yeah, what he said !!!

[Harry P.]

I think the real question should be: "If Revell tooled up an all-new kit, why is the kit not more accurate?"

See post 400-402.

[Ace-Garageguy]

Thing is, they HAD to cut all new steel to make this thing...they didn't just pull an old tool of the shelf and 'modify' it. It doesn't work that way. Sooooooo, a little more effort on the CAD work could have EASILY and CHEAPLY resulted in what everyone seems to want...no more cash outlay than what it cost to do what they did. Unless of course they pay their CAD guys salaries like Wall Street brokers.

Edited February 7, 2013 by Ace-Garageguy

[johnbuzzed]

And, did Revell actually send anyone to examine the real car up close or were pictures used as reference? I understand the $$$ situation, but, sometimes, you gotta spend money to make money. Really, how much more would it have cost Revell to get some more accuracy? No master cylinder -was it forgotten, overlooked or determined to be un-necessary? This kit will probably grab the general public's eye more than the '57 Ford or '50 Olds kits will, yet from what I read, those kits are more accurate than the Rat Roaster.

Edited February 7, 2013 by johnbuzzed

[Casey]

By the way, I know I'm kind of pedantic, but "spindle mount" wheels don't HAVE bolts. They mount to the...wait for it...spindle. All that retains them is the wheel bearing nut / washer.

Yes, I am aware of what a spindle mount wheel is and how it's retained, which I tried to convey in my comment using "style" to indicate the RR's wheels were similar to, but not exactly like the spindle mount Sprint wheels.

I think these'll be quite popular.

[Ace-Garageguy]

Or...maybe they figured most of the guys sittin' on the couch watchin' Mr. David sort-of-do-something wouldn't notice a little thing like a missing master cylinder, or even know the difference between a tube axle and a beam axle anyway. Probably a lot of truth to that, too. Know your market, grasshopper.

[Guest G Holding]

And, did Revell actually send anyone to examine the real car up close or were pictures used as reference? I understand the $$$ situation, but, sometimes, you gotta spend money to make money. Really, how much more would it have cost Revell to get some more accuracy? No master cylinder -was it forgotten, overlooked or determined to be un-necessary? This kit will probably grab the general public's eye more than the '57 Ford or '50 Olds kits will, yet from what I read, those kits are more accurate than the Rat Roaster.

Yeah....just a couple of old guys....Sexton and Harney....(I think they know more than most here)

I have read this whole topic, I am not sure why Revell would even think of making this "junk" BUT they MUST have a reason And I think they will do fine while making a lot of money

22 pages of whining and moans.....I like the kit and will get a couple....And I am sure revell will send all the purists a master cylinder

SHEESH !!