First detailed look - Revell's '29 Model A Hot Rod Roadster ...updated with photos of completed builds of both kit versions

[Impalow]

Tim - you nailed the engine - hit it right on the head!!

Bah- Dump- bump....  hahaha..... 

Thanks for the excellent review Tim, I need to get my hands on several of these. 

Amazing work on the engine as usual, your nice clean wash in the fins pops the detail nicely! 

[unclescott58]

Another top notch review! I'm not a big Model A fan. But, I plan on getting this one and build a nice channeled rat rod with the patina decals. But, also with the chrome hub caps, trim rings and wide whites. Again thanks for your great review. I love the detail you go into reviewing these kits. The comparison to AMT's "A". And the exhaust spacing. Always the best.

[tim boyd]

Another top notch review! I'm not a big Model A fan. But, I plan on getting this one and build a nice channeled rat rod with the patina decals. But, also with the chrome hub caps, trim rings and wide whites. Again thanks for your great review. I love the detail you go into reviewing these kits. The comparison to AMT's "A". And the exhaust spacing. Always the best.

Thanks Scott...and to all the rest of you, for your feedback on this review.  Needless to say, it's some amount of work, but something I am happy to do to promote a genre of model car building I really like, and an excellent new kit of the same genre/subject.

Cheers...TIM  

Edited August 28, 2015 by tim boyd

[tim boyd]

 

Posted 3 minutes ago (edited) · Report post

Wanted to post some comparo photos of the two completed builds...and thought this thread might be the appropriate place.  So here goes: 

A ground-level profile shot: 

And finally, an overhead birdseye front 3/4 view

As many people have complained over the last few years about Revell making people buy two different kits of the same topic (e.g. the '72 Olds kits, and the '62 Corvette kits) to get the complete range of building alternatives; Revell deserves huge chops in my mind this time, for packaging all the parts to create two such highly differentiated builds within the same box.  These are far more complete and better executed than any of the AMT Trophy Series 3 in 1 kits that so many of us view as a gold standard for this type of kit configuration.  Yet one more sign that we are truly in the "Third Golden Age" of the Model Car Hobby right now!  

Best Regards....TIM   

[unclescott58]

Thanks for posting the above photos Tim. After seeing them I will have to build mine as a highboy. The channeled car just doesn't look right to me. And I don't mean Revell missed the mark on the channeled version. After seeing your photos I just don't like the looks of it. In general I've anyways liked highboys better. But I do think Revell did a great job with the channeled version too.

What I am a little disappointed in, in seeing your photos, are the patina/rust decals. These don't look right to me. They don't look like rust or patina. They just look like decal. What's your thoughts on this? Maybe you built/painted your model too nice to make those decals work?

The highboy I'm very impressed with great job. I think you did a great job on the other, but the general looks and the decals are missing the mark for me.

[Ace-Garageguy]

Both good looking models, and nicely useful to see both out-of-the-box possibilities presented side-by-side.

To have built either of these from what has been available previously would have taken some serious kit-bashing, a very well-stocked stash, and more knowledge of '29 Ford rods than most model builders posses.

Even after my critical comments, I have to say, overall, nice work Revell.

[unclescott58]

Would painting the channeled car another color have made those rust/patina decals maybe blend in better? I'm not trying to criticize your choices Tim. Your model is great. It's just that I like idea of decals, and I'm wondering if anybody else has any idea of how make them more real? More right? I'm not sure how to phase what I'm trying to say. I kind of like the idea of building a car with a little surface rust on it.

[tim boyd]

Would painting the channeled car another color have made those rust/patina decals maybe blend in better? I'm not trying to criticize your choices Tim. Your model is great. It's just that I like idea of decals, and I'm wondering if anybody else has any idea of how make them more real? More right? I'm not sure how to phase what I'm trying to say. I kind of like the idea of building a car with a little surface rust on it.

Scott....a primer gray or possibly a light blue/gray (like the color of the Channeled version on the box art) might work better with the "fauxtina" decals.

In my case, I used them as a way to save a paint job that did not go down as planned due to a leaky paint can that I should have discarded rather than try to use.

I also wanted to achieve the biggest visual contrast vs. the Highboy model, which as you know was very :"shiny".  That is, I wanted to show just how greatly differentiated a model you could build from two of the same kits.  

At the very least, I think this Channeled version build may suggest to people the possibility that the fauxtina decals might be worth exploring.  Whereas, nearly everyone had serious doubts that they could be used at all, based at just looking at them on the decal sheet.   That exploration process is part of what a "quickbuild" like this hopes to achieve.  

Would I do it again this way?  Probably not, and I think that the majority of honest/candid feedback here reflects similar views to that conclusion.  But at least now I (and indeed, most everyone reading this thread), knows.  Appreciate the question and the feedback.   Cheers....TIm 

 

Edited September 3, 2015 by tim boyd

[tim boyd]

Both good looking models, and nicely useful to see both out-of-the-box possibilitiesAsented side-by-side.

To have built either of these from what has been available previously would have taken some serious kit-bashing, a very well-stocked stash, and more knowledge of '29 Ford rods than most model builders posses.

Even after my critical comments, I have to say, overall, nice work Revell.

Appreciate the comments, Bill.   Best Regards....TIM

[tim boyd]

Interesting that no one has commented on the "worn interior" decals?  What is your view of that treatment?   Cheers....TIM

[kingiguana]

Nice kit,...I noticed one strange thing on the decal sheet,,,,,theres a shift pattern decal for the shift knob. However the kit has a automatic transmission only. I wonder if theres to be an alternate version of this kit in the future ? Or just an oversite. Still, a cool detail for another kit,....if that decal will form to the round knob that is. 

[59 Buick]

I like the worn interior better than the exterior decals.

I have been trying to work out what they represent, at first, I thought it was worn paint, is that correct.

I think you are right, a different colour may make them stand out a bit better.

regards

Marty

Edited September 3, 2015 by 59 Buick
grammar

[tim boyd]

Nice kit,...I noticed one strange thing on the decal sheet,,,,,theres a shift pattern decal for the shift knob. However the kit has a automatic transmission only. I wonder if theres to be an alternate version of this kit in the future ? Or just an oversite. Still, a cool detail for another kit,....if that decal will form to the round knob that is. 

Joe....I noticed this too and I did not use the shifter decal on the Highboy version a result.  I did use the "eyeball" shifter decal, which is the same size, on the Channeled version.  It fit fine, once treated with Micro Set applied before the decal, and MicroSol after the decal.  

Cheers...>TIM     

[Jantrix]

Hmm.....................based on this we're gonna have to do some work to get that channeled rod lower to the ground. It doesn't look much lower than the highboy. Thanks for the work Tim. Much appreicated.

 

A ground-level profile shot: 

 

[jbwelda]

just like I said: the highboy sits a tad bit lower than the channeled version.

and now it is easy to see why the rear wheel wells "fit" both versions: they were made to fit the highboy and the channeled version doesn't lower the body at all, just channels it slightly, very slightly, over what appears to be a higher riding "z-ed" frame. that leaves the top of the rear wheel arch at the same place or even higher than the "highboy".

I like the patina decals and have from the start. if they don't "look right" then its because they were not used "right" (no judgement, just stating a fact). and I like those seat decals even more, will probably use them elsewhere as for right now I am using my initial buy of this kit for parts on a current build and probably build the nailhead for an engine stand to display it with the other nailheads I have built up for display.

jb

 

[tim boyd]

just like I said: the highboy sits a tad bit lower than the channeled version.

y.jb

 

JB - the highboy in finished form is higher than the Channeled version, albeit not by very much.  Compare the top of the rear deck in the side view posted above and you can clearly see that the aqua car is taller in terms of height.  

Now if you are talking about ground clearance (distance from the ground to the bottom of the frame rails, then I do agree with you - again, the side view comparison makes that point very clear.  (Maybe each of us interpret the word "sit" differently - no worries either way).  

PS - I'd love to see your builtup Nailheads display!  

**********************.  

All - Regarding the channeled version, if you go back and look at many 1950's/early 1960's channeled hot rods, the overall stance in many cases was not too different from this model.  On the other hand, if your frame of reference is recently (e.g. last ten years) built Channeled Hot Rods and Rat Rods, and you want to mirror that look with your model, you're going to have redo the frame with a Z'ed effect added at the front, and an increase the vertical distance of the Ze'd frame at the back, as some of you have noted above.  

Cheers...TIM 

Edited September 3, 2015 by tim boyd

[Ace-Garageguy]

Just like in the real hot-rod world, no rod, or two rods, are going to have the right "look" for everyone. Beauty is very much in the eye of the beholder when it comes to building cars.

What Revell has done here is to present two great starting points for building what YOU want, or building fine looking models right out of the box.

This is a far better jumping-off-point than has been previously offered (and mine came today...the FIRST kit I've ever been enthusiastic enough about to order when it was introduced).

[horsepower]

JB - the highboy in finished form is higher than the Channeled version, albeit not by very much.  Compare the top of the rear deck in the side view posted above and you can clearly see that the aqua car is taller in terms of height.  

Now if you are talking about ground clearance (distance from the ground to the bottom of the frame rails, then I do agree with you - again, the side view comparison makes that point very clear.  (Maybe each of us interpret the word "sit" differently - no worries either way).  

PS - I'd love to see your builtup Nailheads display!  

**********************.  

All - Regarding the channeled version, if you go back and look at many 1950's/early 1960's channeled hot rods, the overall stance in many cases was not too different from this model.  On the other hand, if your frame of reference is recently (e.g. last ten years) built Channeled Hot Rods and Rat Rods, and you want to mirror that look with your model, you're going to have redo the frame with a Z'ed effect added at the front, and an increase the vertical distance of the Ze'd frame at the back, as some of you have noted above.  

Cheers...TIM 

Or you can do what most builders I've been around do, and that's what's called a "suicide" front spring perch, where the front perch is built up off of the front spreader/crossmember to the height you want to lower the front of end.

Edited September 3, 2015 by horsepower

[Speedfreak]

Those builds look great Tim. I love the turquoise one. That engine color with the black and white just kills.

[jbwelda]

yeah Tim I was referring to ground clearance not overall height of the body on chassis. by the way my "frame of reference" is how my friends built their cars 30 - 35 years ago, they did not have them sitting up high. "rat rod" sensibilities came from somewhere and to me that was the backyard hot rod scene in Cali back in the early mid eighties and of course harkening all the way back to "original" cars you are referring more to, but more the low riding cars than the high riders. of course way back in the day you had to do extreme things to the car and frame to get it to ride low on those big bias ply tires they had back then

heres probably the only nailhead you would be interested in, you have probably built the rest a million times

jb

 

Edited September 3, 2015 by jbwelda

[tim boyd]

JB....that's a really interesting Nailhead alright!  

My first channeled roadster was this '32, which was inspired by a photo of a channeled '32 in one of the Street Rod Pictorial Annuals of the early 1970's (1974 I believe).  It's not an exact duplicate, but close.  I built it around 1975 or so. This picture is the third time I've rebuilt it....as of about five years ago.  More photos of this, and the second version (rebuilt around 1980) are at this link:

http://public.fotki.com/funman1712/tim-boyds-124th--12/boyd-street-rods-ra/boydstreetrodsratro/page7.html  

Funny enough, I was also in the center of the California street rod scene in the early 1980's.  I lived in Foster City (10 miles south of SFO), was good buddies with Roy Brizio, Bill Burnham, and Dave Hill, and was doing some full size street rod work for Street Rodder as well as my model column (that oft-seen action shot of the Prufer CopShop '34 was taken by Street Rodder Editor Geoff Carter from the back seat of my Mustang convertible one Saturday afternoon....)  I visited Boyd in his shop when it was in his 2-stall wide, 3 car deep garage behind his house in Stanton.  Steve Coonan took me around one evening to see his street rod buddies, including that oft-seen-in-years-since Offy powered, Red '29 Roadster Pickup Highboy. This wasn't really the  underground scene you are referring to, but for a boy from Michigan, all those guys were great and I look back on that period with great fondness.....TIM 

Edited September 4, 2015 by tim boyd

[tim boyd]

Or you can do what most builders I've been around do, and that's what's called a "suicide" front spring perch, where the front perch is built up off of the front spreader/crossmember to the height you want to lower the front of end.

Horse....yep I agree.  I have a '29 Lowboy Channeled Roadster I built a few years ago....and that's exactly what I did.  Let's see if I can find a picture of it......welll....looks like this is the best I have right now

Maybe I can try to photograph this next to the new Revell Channeled Roadster for a little comparo....but trust me, this one sits WAY lower.....Cheers...TB 

[Ace-Garageguy]

Those are some great looking hot-rod Fords, Tim.

I just had a chance to sit down at the bench and briefly go through the kit (arrived today, school tomorrow). First impression...fine kit, as you can of course tell from all of Tim Boyd's photos. The parts tooling is very clean and crisp. The brake drums are just beautiful, and the '40 Ford "juice" backing plates look good too.

The engine and trans also look good, and the header-spacing issue (for those of you who see it) is a relatively easy fix. Honestly, it's not as obvious in the flesh, on the bench, as it was in the photos here. No surprise though...I've often caught huge-looking flaws on my own models after posting here that I'd never noticed while working on the things.

What I was REALLY curious about was how this kit would mix-and-match with the junkyard full of old AMT and Revell model-A kits I have. The answer is that anything you should want to swap will be pretty straightforward if you're comfortable doing a little styrene surgery. The AMT soft-tops fit like they're made for it, almost, and the AMT hoods do too, almost. There's a very slight forward-slope at the bottom of the new Revell cowl, but a couple licks with a file will cure it. Though the dimensions and shapes of the new Revell '29 body are mostly very close to the old AMT kit's part, the Revell body won't fit the old AMT or Revell '28-'29 fenders...primarily because the rear wheel-well is opened up higher on this new body shell. Fill the wheel-cutouts with styrene (and a little tweaking here and there) and you're back in the game.

The way the new Revell model-A frame is zeed in the back makes it easy to graft in an AMT buggy-spring crossmember, if you're so inclined. The new '32 chassis, with stepped rails, will also accept the old AMT buggy-spring rear crossmember easily. Just like in real cars, either an A or a T rear crossmember (and spring) is necessary of you want to drop a '32 into the weeds while running a quick-change with the transverse spring.

Really, the interchangeability of the parts from these manufacturers is why accurate scaling is important. And it's why parts from kits tooled over a 50-year-plus span fit together reasonably well. All the manufacturers did their work to a decent standard.

Speaking of the '32 frame in this kit...it's by far the nicest '32 rails in styrene so far. The side reveal stamping, one of the signature '32 ONLY styling features, is clean, crisp, and looks right. This is going to be THE frame to use if you're building anything on '32 rails that show.

All for now. Time for bed......

Edited September 4, 2015 by Ace-Garageguy

[jbwelda]

Tim, to call it a nailhead is probably really stretching it; it was the aluminum Buick V8 GM licensed to BMC or whatever it might have been to put in limited MGBs, Rovers and Morgans. those are the Morgan (stock) headers on there, pretty wild. so while it has the dominant characteristic I associate with a "nailhead", namely the vertical oriented valve covers, it probably doesn't share much else. there was a very educational thread here some years back about the lineage of the motor, and possibly you and Bill both contributed to it. I obviously need to go back and reread it.

one thing I wish someone would reproduce are those spark plug wire covers that compliment so many 1:1 NHs. I have some on the old AMT 32 Ford/43(?) Willys kit that I built up years ago but of course that has never been reissued to my knowledge, and I have never seen that setup anywhere else on the available NHs.

I like what Bill is talking about too, the interchangibility of parts between different issues of similar cars. I would look at those rat rod pickups in detail too...for some reason I am thinking of an abbreviated truck channeled over the 32 frame

jb

[Atmobil]

Tim, to call it a nailhead is probably really stretching it; it was the aluminum Buick V8 GM licensed to BMC or whatever it might have been to put in limited MGBs, Rovers and Morgans. those are the Morgan (stock) headers on there, pretty wild. so while it has the dominant characteristic I associate with a "nailhead", namely the vertical oriented valve covers, it probably doesn't share much else. there was a very educational thread here some years back about the lineage of the motor, and possibly you and Bill both contributed to it. I obviously need to go back and reread it.

one thing I wish someone would reproduce are those spark plug wire covers that compliment so many 1:1 NHs. I have some on the old AMT 32 Ford/43(?) Willys kit that I built up years ago but of course that has never been reissued to my knowledge, and I have never seen that setup anywhere else on the available NHs.

I like what Bill is talking about too, the interchangibility of parts between different issues of similar cars. I would look at those rat rod pickups in detail too...for some reason I am thinking of an abbreviated truck channeled over the 32 frame

jb

How did you build the Rover V8?

I have been thinking of using such a motor in many projects but never found out how to get a decent one. (one example is Escis Range Rover)

 

Anyway, great builds Tim and yes I will have to buy atleast one of this kit. I had several model A kits some years ago but have sold of all of them over time.

Now, it looks like I have to buy them back.