Greg Myers Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 http://www.round2models.com/models/amt/ford-t-body Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1930fordpickup Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 cool Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unclescott58 Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 (edited) This is the only parts pack kit I do not already have. Since I have rest, I need to add this one to my collection too. With all of AMT's parts pack kits, I may have to build something with them. Does anybody know how well this body fits on to their parts pack chassis? And has anybody out there ever built a model using only AMT parts pack kits (or at least for the main parts)? And if so. I'd love to see some examples. Scott Edited October 9, 2014 by unclescott58 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernard Kron Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 (edited) ... Does anybody know how well this body fits on to their part pack chassis? And has anybody out there ever built a model using only AMT part pack kits (or at least for the main parts)? And if so. I love to see some examples. Scott Judging by the instructions that come with the Parts Pack T-Altered I believe the AMT Walt's Puffer chassis in the double dragster kit is the Parts Pack chassis. If so then the body fits perfectly. Here's one I built in 2010. The motor is the Parts Pack Pontiac. Edited August 5, 2014 by Bernard Kron Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unclescott58 Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 (edited) Your model looks great Bernard, but it seems to me that parts pack chassis has a torsion bar suspension. So can not be the same as Walt's Puffer. But, that gives another option for that body. And maybe an excuse to buy another Double Dragster set. Scott Edited August 6, 2014 by unclescott58 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernard Kron Posted August 6, 2014 Share Posted August 6, 2014 (edited) ... it seems to me that parts pack chassis has a torsion bar suspension. So can not be the same as Walt's Puffer. ... You're right. The AMT #3004 Custom-Competition Hot Rod Frame is a completely different beast. But it's interesting that the actual instructions that came with the T-Bucket altered body clearly showed the Double Dragster's Altered frame, implying that the body was marketed as an alternative to the Fiat. Here are some pics including the instructions showing what I referring to (thanx to Dave Fletcher for his excellent pics of the Hot Rod Frame posted here in 2009 - see http://www.modelcarsmag.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=25164 ). The T-bucket instructions are my scan of the re-print from the Stevens International Competition Parts Pack re-issue. Edited August 6, 2014 by Bernard Kron Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unclescott58 Posted August 6, 2014 Share Posted August 6, 2014 I went over to Dave Fletcher's build you put a link to. Very cool. But, it doesn't answer my question. Will the T parts pack body work with parts pack chassis? Since I already have a chassis I guess I can wait. But, it would be fun to know ahead of time. Or do I go out and buy another Double Dragster kit? Scott Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbwelda Posted August 6, 2014 Share Posted August 6, 2014 anything will fit, given enough work, but I think you are safest to go the DD route. I do believe the instrux in the stevens international version may even say that's what its a perfect match for, but maybe its just that I wrote myself a note in there to that effect. so I would say use the parts pack chassis if you want challenging, or the DD if you want less of a challenge. personally I wish AMT would release some new stuff in the parts packs, besides the wheels and tires I mean. these have been released not that long ago and while nice aren't essential. I vote for a fully optioned Buick nailhead with pure stock parts and various intakes and dress up stuff. now THAT I would get excited about! jb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernard Kron Posted August 6, 2014 Share Posted August 6, 2014 ,,,I vote for a fully optioned Buick nailhead with pure stock parts and various intakes and dress up stuff. now THAT I would get excited about!... Here here!!! (there there...) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toner283 Posted August 6, 2014 Share Posted August 6, 2014 personally I wish AMT would release some new stuff in the parts packs, besides the wheels and tires I mean. these have been released not that long ago and while nice aren't essential. I vote for a fully optioned Buick nailhead with pure stock parts and various intakes and dress up stuff. now THAT I would get excited about! jb X3 I would be in for at least a dozen nailheads. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveM Posted August 6, 2014 Share Posted August 6, 2014 The nailhead does it for me too! Also, a nice Olds motor would be great. I like the one in the Revell kit, but it's an expensive way to get a motor. I would also like some cool speed equipment for the Olds. These were some pretty popular hot rod motors in their day, and they were built up a lot of different ways. A nice hot rod olds with different parts than the Revell custom version would make a neat parts pack. I am kind of hoping the aftermarket will step up with some Rocket and nailhead speed parts. With the reissue of Ivo's Showboat coming up, we can get a whole bunch of Buicks for one low price. The only problem is that we need transmissions for all of them. (Are you listening Norm?) Somebody could get my $$$ with either of these items. As for the Body kit, I have a couple of Double Dragster kits around with the dragsters built, the Fiat bodies converted to altereds and the engines used in other builds. Sounds like a perfect way to use up my fiat frames. I still haven't met a parts pack I didn't like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DynoMight Posted August 6, 2014 Share Posted August 6, 2014 A nailhead would be cool. If only, if only... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dennis Lacy Posted August 9, 2014 Share Posted August 9, 2014 Here is this same Parts Pack roadster body kit on top of the Fiat Altered chassis from the Double Dragster set. Don't make the same mistake I did! I built the chassis straight from the box. The roadster body kit IS a direct fit but as this picture illustrates, considerably shorter than the Fiat body leaving a huge gap between the engine and cowl. I didn't do any extensive test fitting because I was under the impression that there was no alteration required to the Fiat chassis. Wrong! So if anyone is going to use this body on the Fiat chassis, the engine needs to be moved back and the drive line shortened accordingly. Compare my model with Bernard's above. His is right, mine is wrong. A few more. The engine placement isn't as horrible from 3/4 shots... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DynoMight Posted August 9, 2014 Share Posted August 9, 2014 Cool model Dennis! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernard Kron Posted August 9, 2014 Share Posted August 9, 2014 (edited) I still like it, Dennis. I think the only thing that saved my bacon was using a different motor which forced me to pay attention! Edited August 9, 2014 by Bernard Kron Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbwelda Posted August 10, 2014 Share Posted August 10, 2014 hmmm too bad but it still looks great. so whats the fix there? are the frame rails parallel between the rear wheels and the back of the trans? so it can be easily cut and fit back together with a half inch gone? they did run cars like that back in the day as you probably know, but it doesn't look as good as having it more compact, to my mind anyway. and you are kinda between a rock and a hard place what with that built in rear tire clearance on the body/turtle deck. kinda stuck with major surgery. like I said, I still really like it. if you didn't glue that body down you could have the fiat body as a replacement to add some more interest too. kool build! jb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dennis Lacy Posted August 10, 2014 Share Posted August 10, 2014 hmmm too bad but it still looks great. so whats the fix there? are the frame rails parallel between the rear wheels and the back of the trans? so it can be easily cut and fit back together with a half inch gone? they did run cars like that back in the day as you probably know, but it doesn't look as good as having it more compact, to my mind anyway. and you are kinda between a rock and a hard place what with that built in rear tire clearance on the body/turtle deck. kinda stuck with major surgery. like I said, I still really like it. if you didn't glue that body down you could have the fiat body as a replacement to add some more interest too. kool build! jb JB, No frame modifications would be necessary. The fix would be to move the engine back in the frame until it is just in front of the firewall. That would be very simple since the frame rails are parallel and the engine mounts simply sit on top of the frame rails. The drive shaft (actually, in this case torque tube) would need to be shortened the amount the engine was moved rearward. Then, the radiator shell would mount between the front of the engine and the platform that the Moon fuel tank sits on. If you look at Bernard's yellow and red version above, that is how his is setup. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbwelda Posted August 10, 2014 Share Posted August 10, 2014 (edited) yep I see what you are talking about; still, personally I think it would look better with the frame shortened. but using that real estate in front of the moved-back radiator shell for the moon tank would look good too. now the thing about Bernards most beautiful build, is that it looks like he split the difference and left still a gap between the motor and the firewall, but this one looks much more realistic I would say. I think I would like to shorten the frame and snug the motor against the firewall some more. both very beautiful builds and it is inspiring me to dig around in that double dragster kit for a forthcoming project. might even use this T body shell because its a favorite style of mine, but I am afraid I won't need the new parts pack because ive got multiples of the body already from previous issues. jb Edited August 11, 2014 by jbwelda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dennis Lacy Posted August 11, 2014 Share Posted August 11, 2014 yep I see what you are talking about; still, personally I think it would look better with the frame shortened. but using that real estate in front of the moved-back radiator shell for the moon tank would look good too. now the thing about Bernards most beautiful build, is that it looks like he split the difference and left still a gap between the motor and the firewall, but this one looks much more realistic I would say. I think I would like to shorten the frame and snug the motor against the firewall some more. both very beautiful builds and it is inspiring me to dig around in that double dragster kit for a forthcoming project. might even use this T body shell because its a favorite style of mine, but I am afraid I won't need the new parts pack because ive got multiples of the body already from previous issues. jb Absolutely, if one wanted to shorten the frame that is also a possibility. I just wanted to be clear for the benefit of others reading this (who may be intimidated by that) that it's not a must. I agree that Bernard left an "appropriate" gap between the engine and firewall. A little bit of room to run a wrench back there in the pits between races. I plan to get another body as soon as this Parts Pack is in-stock at my LHS and do a version 2.0 with corrected proportions. The frame is a perfect rectangle so I'll probably just make one and cobble up some axles, suspension and engine since I don't have any more Fiat's on-hand. i wouldn't want a duplicate, anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernard Kron Posted August 11, 2014 Share Posted August 11, 2014 Thanks for all the kind words about my T Altered. I'm certain I'll build another early 60's altered roadster based on this body now that it's being re-issued. Here are some comments about doing the first one. From a performance perspective it's best to set the motor back the maximum the rules will allow to enhance traction. But I had no idea of what the rules allowed so I just eyeballed it. The AMT Double Dragster Walt's Puffer Fiat is the first version constructed in late 1958 or early 1959. It was based on the stock 1939 Fiat steel body with its a separate hood and longer cowl length. The longer cowl and the drive line parts determined the kit layout. As I mentioned, swapping motors removed any temptation to go with the kit spacing. As it happens the T-bucket was the first of 4 models I extracted from the Tin Box version of the AMT Double Dragster kit. The second model was based on the Fiat body but without the chassis or front suspension I dove into the parts box for the suspension and I scratch built a tubular frame. Dimensionally it's the same as the kit to the front of the motor but I lengthened the front end slightly to establish a setback similar to the roadster. So I guess I took the opposite tack to that of shortening the frame. For what it's worth (since in modeling we can do anything we want based on our creative goals), a shorter frame is generally less stable. Here are some pics: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt T. Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 Kooool! Must have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unclescott58 Posted September 15, 2014 Share Posted September 15, 2014 This is the only parts pack kit I do not already have. Since I have rest, I need to add this one to my collection too. With all of AMT's parts pack kits, I may have to build something with them. Does anybody know how well this body fits on to their parts pack chassis? And has anybody out there ever built a model using only AMT parts pack kits (or at least for the main parts)? And if so. I love to see some examples. Scott I'm quoting myself here. Because I still want to know if anybody has ever build a model car using mainly parts pack kits? And if so, can we see them? Scott Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake45 Posted September 15, 2014 Share Posted September 15, 2014 I'm quoting myself here. Because I still want to know if anybody has ever build a model car using mainly parts pack kits? And if so, can we see them? Scott I'm planning to build a T Altered using only AMT parts pack parts, as much as possible. Gonna paint it with old-school Testor paints, too. It would be easier to build a complete car out of Revell parts packs, but they aren't available anymore (except a few of the engines). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake45 Posted September 15, 2014 Share Posted September 15, 2014 I went over to Dave Fletcher's build you put a link to. Very cool. But, it doesn't answer my question. Will the T parts pack body work with parts pack chassis? Since I already have a chassis I guess I can wait. But, it would be fun to know ahead of time. Or do I go out and buy another Double Dragster kit? Scott The parts pack T body, with its tubs, is set up as a drag car. The parts pack frame seems to be more of a street rod thing, especially in the rear suspension setup. But I'm gonna alter it a little (nothing that couldn't have been done in 1965) and make it work. The rear suspension won't show in the finished model anyway as it sits on the shelf/table. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unclescott58 Posted September 15, 2014 Share Posted September 15, 2014 The parts pack T body, with its tubs, is set up as a drag car. The parts pack frame seems to be more of a street rod thing, especially in the rear suspension setup. But I'm gonna alter it a little (nothing that couldn't have been done in 1965) and make it work. The rear suspension won't show in the finished model anyway as it sits on the shelf/table. That's the direction I'm thinking. I've had an AMT parts pack frame built for a few years now. I really want to find a use for it. I'm hoping the parts pack T body will work with it. And if not, why not? And If so, I'd like to see some models done using those two parts kits together. What body, did AMT originally figured for use with their parts pack chassis? There must be some old timers out there who know? Scott Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.