Dennis Lacy

Yes it is and thank you!

Thanks for the heads up!

Yes, the suspension in this kit and all of the Revell '32 series should absolutely have a panhard bar to be 1:1 accurate. Without it there is a gigantic lateral load put on the ladder bars which could ultimately fatigue and break them. The reason you can run a transverse (single across) spring with ladder bars and get away without a panhard bar is because the spring controls lateral axle loads. The spring width is shorter than the span between the shackle links so it must be stretched several inches to hook up. Being stretched puts it in tension and keeps the axle from swaying on the shackles. Same scenario for the front spring. Good thing we're only building models!

Tim, One more question. Did you use the white wall decals or are they painted?

Thanks a ton for taking the time to build and photograph your roadster, Tim. This looks like a truly nice kit and I can't wait to grab a couple of them this weekend. I also think that the colors you chose look a million times better on the car than the bright orange box top version. As I look at the finished pictures I think my only complaint is that the front could sit a touch lower because the car looks absolutely level. That 6-carb Buick looks superb, too. Whatever port spacing discrepancies there may be doesn't take away from how awesome it looks (at least not in my opinion.)

I'm willing to bet that a person could use the back side of a #11 blade and the wheel well as a guide to scribe the interior side panels free from the wheel wells. That would allow the wheel well to be glued to the body and the seam filled before paint.

Which was my exact argument a couple pages back.

Thanks for putting up those real Nailhead pics, JB. Comparing the two it looks really close to me. Way to close to make a fuss over and definitely way too close to condemn the engine to the trader classifieds. Like Bill, I build hot rods for a living too and know all too well that sometimes being a perfectionist can be a curse. I don't mean this with any disrespect, but I think the port-spacing argument is getting pretty nit-picky. I mean, the engine doesn't look like anything other than a vintage Buick. Although, I'm not intimately familiar with Buick engines so maybe it's easier for me to not see the issue? Now, the port spacing on the "Chrysler" Hemi engine in the Revell '32 5-Window? Yeah, that's obviously wonky.

Reading through Tim's review again at a much slower pace and studying all of the pictures thoroughly I have to express how much I truly can't wait to get a hold of a few of these in the coming weeks. Comparing the two box models I think I like the channeled version the most. Maybe it's just the way that the builder chose to decorate it with some "patina" but it just looks tough,all business. I also think the stance is better than the '32 frame version with a proper forward rake. The '32 frame version looks like it sits totally flat which then plays tricks on the eyes making it look like the back end squats. I think I'll build the channeled one first with two modifications that will make it look even tougher: - Chopped '32 grill - Chopped windshield by an 1/8th or so.

I have a genuine original '32 Ford frame sitting 20 feet away from me as I type this and the front frame horns absolutely turn out parallel at the ends where the spreader bar attaches so (pinched or not) that detail is 100% correct.

Thank you for the outstanding photo review, Tim! I can't wait to get my hands on a few of these. For the most part I see nothing about this kit that bothers me to the point of worrying about correcting. I seriously think I will do a box-stock build up and add a great looking hot rod to my display case. The only thing that truly bothers me (and I just don't get) is why the kit designer(s) decided to add raised cradles to the rear frame rails that the axle solidly sits on. Maybe it's because the coilovers are too fragile to support the weight of the back of the model? That's just hokey as hell. Structurally it wouldn't have been a problem with a Model A or T buggy spring back there. Just sayin'...

So... Have you never, in your whole life, looked at something (anything) and thought to yourself that if it was yours you would have done things different? If you say no I'd find that incredibly hard to believe. That's all we're doing here, just having a discussion. Nobody has suggested we make a list of corrections and submit it to the owner and insist he comply. Everyone is entitled to their opinion As far as dependable, there's absolutely nothing less dependable about a properly restored factory GM ignition over an MSD system. In fact, I'd argue that the factory parts are more dependable. Especially if you have a failure on the road and need a quick repair. Your local auto parts store is not going to carry in-stock a new magnetic pickup or cap & rotor for your MSD distributor or a new 6-series ignition box needed to run said distributor. You do, however, have a really strong chance that they will have new points, condenser, cap and rotor for your factory distributor.

This is my opinion: I don't care about what components a person uses to build their hot rod. If it makes them happy, awesome. Naturally, as I look the car over I will see things that I would have done different. The guy looking at it next to me will do the same and our ideas probably won't be 100% agreeable. However... If an owner / builder of a hot rod is going to stand next to it and boast that it is period correct to specific era, year, whatever - then every detail of the car should be spot-on. I will add that as I stand and look over a hot rod the biggest thing that bothers me is when there is no consistent theme to a car. I think that a lot of people go through catalogs and choose components on an individual basis without much thought to how they will all look together. You have to stand back and look at the big picture and ask yourself two questions, "Does this all look good together?" and "Is there anything that stands out like a sore thumb that your eyes immediately focus on rather than seeing the whole car?" The Buick engine in the original post above is a good example. The main components follow a decidedly vintage theme (engine choice, valve covers, valley cover, intake, probably the air filter lid) while it is sprinkled with a couple of very modern parts like the billet MSD distributor / plug wires and the ceramic coated headers. The red of the cap and wires also clashes with the pale green engine paint. (Would you wear seafoam pants with a red t-shirt?) It would have been just as easy to use an early Delco dual-point distributor with a black cap and black wires with regular plug boots.A flat black hi-temp coating is also available that is just as durable as the silver ceramic. If it were mine I would want the focal point to be the vintage Buick engine, not the red ignition components and shiny headers. If those components were toned down all the eye would see is Buick goodness. Details truly do make or break any custom vehicle and they are very much worth the time to get right.

I've had the pleasure of seeing the Purple People Eater run down the strip, lots of fun! I wonder if the picture with the 2-port injector is more recent cause I've only ever seen it with the 8 Stromberg's.

In the grand scheme of life... Who Cares? What difference does it make in or to any ones life what name or "buzz word" Revell decides to stick on a model kit box. I feel bad for people who waste their time worrying about BLAH_BLAH_BLAH_BLAH like this.

Gotta agree with you! Here's a hot rod based on the '30 Coupe. Not much left of the original kit but I used the body and modified the frame. I also attached the roof section ahead of time like others have suggested and added .040" half-round styrene around the joint to cover it up. It's the only way to get good results with the body. I didn't cut out the package shelf but kind of wish I would have. I notched the back of the seat, though, so the seat covers most of it up. Hosted on Fotki Hosted on Fotki Hosted on Fotki

Beautiful near-out-of-the-box Deuce Sedan! Love the color and the special touches like the dual quad setup with back to back Edelbrock style air cleaners. Clean work on the top choppin', too! Isn't it awesome how the stepped chop method saves the roof insert detail and saves the step of stretching the roof? Where'd you learn of the method? Not too long back I did a '32 Sedan and posted a step-by-step write up on another forum.

Very nicely done and very representative of what's going on with real Fox Mustang's these days. What a difference that resin body makes! I remember back in the late 90's when people started doing mod-motor swaps into these cars and it was really big deal. Now it's so common that people don't really do a double take. In about 2003 a good friend of mine bought an '89 Coupe that had a complete '98 Cobra drive train (engine, trans, rear axle, brakes, wheels) swapped into it. It was kind of a hack-job and we had to straighten everything out and make it presentable. What was interesting is how much harder that stock Cobra drive train ran in the Fox Mustang shell vs. an actual '98 Cobra.

I grew up around '33/'34 Ford's and as far as I know, the front fenders are interchangeable. The inner fender panels that fill the gap between them and the top of the frame are '33/'34 specific, but I can't remember if it's simply in the stamping detail or the actual fit of the part. The '33 Sedan street rod and '34 Sedan stocker came first in the 80's. Everything about the shape of all of the "sheet metal" is horrible. In fact, it just plain sucks. Especially for me because I'm intimately familiar with these Sedans because my Dad has owned an incredibly nice original '34 for 20 years now. I would love to build a basic model of it but the shape of the kit is so bad I just can't bring myself to. The '34 5-Window "sheet metal" is, like you said, a vast improvement in every way. Not perfect, but tons better than the Sedan attempt. The shape of the grille is improved over the "34" Sedan, too. I don't understand, at all, why they decided to make the rear window opening on the coupe a separate part, through. There's no advantage to it and it's certainly not the case on a real one. Just makes extra work for the builder. The biggest issue with the 5-Window, for me, is that the hood is too long. Which is weird, because the shape of the front fenders look right. I'm willing to bet that this was done to accommodate the optional small block Chevy engine because in reality, there's absolutely no way you can fit one with a giant HEI distributor without modifying the firewall and even with the smaller late 50's and early 60's distributor there still has to be a bit of a relief in the very center of the firewall for clearance. Since the firewall is a separate part in these kits it's pretty ridiculous that they couldn't include an additional modified firewall for the Chevy engine. Then again, if the Chevy engine were shoved back (so the hood length was correct) then there probably would be interference issues between it's 4-speed trans and frames center "X".

I would go so far as to guarantee there won't be anything different about the Speedwagon from previous issues. Maybe we'll get lucky and they will include it in their "Basic Builder" series and will be under $20. If that happens it will at least be a reasonably priced parts donor for a street rod project.

There's a good reason for this. The shape of the fenders in the 5-Window are significantly different from the Sedan versions. The 5-Window fenders are much more accurate in shape and size. The Sedan fenders are terrible.

Looks fantastic! Not an easy kit to work with by any means with all of that fiddly chrome.

Street Rodder Magazine did a full coverage of the build of the full scale Speed Wagon over many issues and several years. This car is a 1 of 1 and was Dan Fink's personal project. He didn't do a production run. It was then sold and Dan started his next project, a very well done '32 3-Window Coupe. The coupe project was also fully covered in Street Rodder and partially sponsored by Ford Motorsport / SVO (name changed to Ford Racing in 2000) and featured one of their crate engines with their then-new GT40X aluminum cylinder heads.

I knew I forgot one...

- If you take issue with the shape of the firewall, type "1" - If you take issue with the shape of the roof opening, type "2" - If you take issue with the fact that a small block Chevy is included, type "3" - If you take no issue with the kit and are just grateful that Revell is releasing anything, type "4" - If you take your hobby way too seriously, type "5" - If you think you could have done it way better, type "6" - If you feel you've reached this thread in error, please click the "back" icon on your browser....