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

[Snake45]

Sadly, I can't see all the pictures, only the first couple dozen. Are there two COMPLETE frames in this kit? I can't see/figure out if there are two rear axles.

So can I build this kit one way or the other, and have a complete rolling frame left over for another project?

[mike 51]

Sadly, I can't see all the pictures, only the first couple dozen. Are there two COMPLETE frames in this kit? I can't see/figure out if there are two rear axles.

So can I build this kit one way or the other, and have a complete rolling frame left over for another project?

No.  There are two frames (with various specific parts for the 2 versions) but only enough parts for one "roller".

[62rebel]

Thanks Tim for an excellent review. And kudos to Revell for putting the effort in to do a great job. this is definitely a must-buy for anyone building rods... and I predict they'll go like Lay's Potato Chips... no one can eat just one!

[DaveM]

Just got my hands on one. The parts all look pretty nicely done. The exhausts don't look too far off, although the header design seems to exaggerate the look.   .  I don't have a real block to measure, so I will leave that up to you guys.  The motor and parts sure look nice.  I can see some wicked nailheads appearing in several builds.   It shouldn't be too hard to scratch out a transverse leaf for the back.   The kit looks like a gold mine for rod parts.  I will probably build the '32 frame on mine, as I have always liked that combination.   This is going to be a "Sweep the bench"  project, as all of my other partial builds have been set aside for a week or two.  I have my '29 kit, a huge box of Modelhaus wheels and tires, a couple of other hot rod kits for swiping of various parts, an AMT '29 for comparison and possible body surgery and a bunch of partial and mocked up engines that will be tried out.  I can't wait to see how this one goes together.  I will be working at it for the next few days.  If they still have one left tomorrow, I might pick up a second one.  The only thing I need to make my life complete is a stack of decent bodies to use on these things.  I might dump a Revell '31 Sedan body on one of these, just to see how it would work.  Hopefully resin casters will come to the rescue with some fixed bodies for these.  As for now, I think I can cut up an AMT body and mate it to this one and make the corrections.  I usually build a kit fairly straight from the box for the first time, but i think this kit needs to be bashed up to be its best.  Can anybody say 409!     I'll have to see what engine looks the best and run with it!

If you really raid the parts box, you could get a good portion of a second build.  Combine the unused frame with a scratched transverse leaf spring and a parts box rear end.  Get an aftermarket dropped or drilled front axle and scratch out a few parts from wire or thin rods.  Toss that aftermarket body on it.  Grab a parts pack motor, or parts box motor... Add in a spare grille shell (or use one of MCG's chopped '32 setups)  We all have tons of wheels and tires lying around.  It's not the easiest or cheapest way to build two models from one kit, but it might be the coolest.  

[Johnny99]

Who will be the first "on the workbench"? 

[horsepower]

After looking at some 1:1 cars both finished and under construction I think that the front frame horns are correct it's just seeing them out of context without the surrounding pieces in place in changes the perspective somewhat. The ones I've seen appear to be straight form just ahead of where the headlight/shock mounts are on the frame, and is just in front of the radiator shell on almost every one, there were a couple that had the shell mounted an inch or so farther back, often depending on the model and year of engine used. But I'm with the apparent majority on the body change, to me they did a lot to make it appear as a nostalgic car, only to make substitutions of the modified body and the coil over shocks that are more contemporary than nostalgic.

[Jantrix]

I've got a '29 RPU and a Phantom Vicky that will both benefit from this kit. I can't wait to dig into this one.

[Snake45]

I've got a '29 RPU and a Phantom Vicky that will both benefit from this kit. I can't wait to dig into this one.

I was thinking the same thing, except with an old AMT '32 roadster instead of the Phantom Vicky.

[LDO]

Cool story, bro! Seriously- I do share your enthusiasm. I'm in for at least three. I have a Tamiya Jaguar 3.8 inline 6 and Moebius early hemi waiting to be swapped in. I also have a Jimmy Flintstone '27 T roadster body.

I think this kit will be a huge success for Revell. I'm anxious to see what will be available from the aftermarket. I think it's a safe bet that someone will offer a body with stock rear wheel openings, along with transverse rear leaf spring. (I like the raised openings. It's a model of a hot rod, and I'd do it that way in real life)

Edited August 21, 2015 by LDO

[horsepower]

I know at least one of mine will trade axles with the Rat Roaster kit, its closer than the one that comes in its box.

[Casey]

It looks like there's been a change in how the molds themselves are designed now at Revell. I haven't purchased many "newer" Revell kits, but the sprues appears a bit hexagonal, and the runners have some interesting terminations, too.

[Travis T]

I'm liking it and I normally don't like fenderless cars. Couldn't care less about the Nailhead since I'd be swapping a flathead into one if I build it. So many years passed where no new kits I wanted came out and now there are tons of wants out there.

[Matt T.]

Great looking kit! What a trove of hot rod parts. Thanks for the comprehensive photo review, Tim. 

[towtruck]

outstanding review (as always.thank's ) on what looks to an awesome kit cant wait to get one.thank's again. & thank you to Revell-Monogram for bringing this kit to market

[jeffbrad]

Thinking rat rod with a Hudson 6

 

[jbwelda]

what I am wondering about are those sprue attachment points on the very thin chrome parts like the radius rods.. I notice that at least some of them are on the downward facing, showing side. also there are those little bits attached to them that just terminate in a bit of tubular plastic. what are those for anyway? couldn't they be eliminated? can't trees like this be designed to not have sprue attachment points in particularly sensitive areas like that, or is it a matter of having to support the part in the mold, or having to being able to inject the plastic there?

whenever I see sprue marks like that on thin rods, I immediately begin planning to use straight pins or something in place of the rods. it would be nice though to get ones straight off the chrome sprue ready to use. my problem with the attachment points is not only do you have to somehow touch up the chrome after you've removed the sprue, but in actually smoothing that spot I always have trouble and end up making the rod just barely too thin there...and I can then see it  in the completed piece. in other words, no matter how much work I put into something like that it never really turns out as well as the original could have.

also I note that at least in the photos, the character line in the frame is terminated at the rear with a sprue attachment point. if that's really at the edge of the character line, that's gonna be pain right there.

also not real happy about the high cut of the wheels wells, I wonder how that's going to look with the highboy version? I know theres a pic on the box but in real life. I have to think its going to look too high in comparison to the tire. I think they will look great on the channeled rod and that's what I would build here. I hope they don't carry over that concept to the next (coupe?) version they bring out.

definitely going to buy one or more though no matter what. one of the best domestic kits I think I have seen in a while, as far as subject matter and execution goes.

jb

 

 

[Snake45]

Thanks for the answer to my question about dual frames. Kind of a shame they don't give you the extra four cents worth of styrene to do two complete frames, but I might have enough goodies laying around to do two anyway. The Switchers/Coddington/Graffiti '32 Ford comes with two front axles, and I have a couple of those laying around.

Could this kit be used with the Revell '29 RPU body to do a "Supersized Fad T" rod as Tim Boyd build a couple decades ago? I always thought that was a VERY cool model.

[tim boyd]

what I am wondering about are those sprue attachment points on the very thin chrome parts like the radius rods.. I notice that at least some of them are on the downward facing, showing side. also there are those little bits attached to them that just terminate in a bit of tubular plastic. what are those for anyway? couldn't they be eliminated? can't trees like this be designed to not have sprue attachment points in particularly sensitive areas like that, or is it a matter of having to support the part in the mold, or having to being able to inject the plastic there?

whenever I see sprue marks like that on thin rods, I immediately begin planning to use straight pins or something in place of the rods. it would be nice though to get ones straight off the chrome sprue ready to use. my problem with the attachment points is not only do you have to somehow touch up the chrome after you've removed the sprue, but in actually smoothing that spot I always have trouble and end up making the rod just barely too thin there...and I can then see it  in the completed piece. in other words, no matter how much work I put into something like that it never really turns out as well as the original could have.

also I note that at least in the photos, the character line in the frame is terminated at the rear with a sprue attachment point. if that's really at the edge of the character line, that's gonna be pain right there.

also not real happy about the high cut of the wheels wells, I wonder how that's going to look with the highboy version? I know theres a pic on the box but in real life. I have to think its going to look too high in comparison to the tire. I think they will look great on the channeled rod and that's what I would build here. I hope they don't carry over that concept to the next (coupe?) version they bring out.

definitely going to buy one or more though no matter what. one of the best domestic kits I think I have seen in a while, as far as subject matter and execution goes.

jb

 

 

JB....your are correct in that some of those tabs are added to make sure the tool fills completely.  My impression is that the chrome tree attachment tabs are pretty small and inconspicuous, but I've started building the kit, so we'll see

I prepped and primed the '32 frame a few hours ago, and there was no issue with the sprue attachment points and the character line.  The frame did need some cleanup, but pretty minor stuff.  The '32 frame 'sweeps" were much better than the Revelll '32 Street Rod series frames, just as I suspected.   

When I first saw the rough tool 18 months ago, I had exactly the same worry about the rear tires and the highboy version.  But when I built it, the tires centered properly, both in the '32 Highboy frame and Channeled 'Z'ed Model A frame version.  We'll see if that holds with the production version, but i would expect it would.  

More to come as I go through the build process....>TIM 

 

 

[tim boyd]

Thanks for the answer to my question about dual frames. Kind of a shame they don't give you the extra four cents worth of styrene to do two complete frames, but I might have enough goodies laying around to do two anyway. The Switchers/Coddington/Graffiti '32 Ford comes with two front axles, and I have a couple of those laying around.

Could this kit be used with the Revell '29 RPU body to do a "Supersized Fad T" rod as Tim Boyd build a couple decades ago? I always thought that was a VERY cool model.

Snake....I'm thinking you are correct on that '29 "Fad A" approach, using the Z'ed Model A frame.  I dug out that old article a few months ago, intending to revisit it for a possible new build exactly along these lines.  I also did a quick fit under the AMT '29 A body AND fenders....looks like it would adapt fiarly easing, with relatively little trimming.  Not sure about the resulting wheelt/tire stance as I didn't have the suspension mocked up yet.  But theoretocally all the 1/25th scale Model A bodies should adapt with minor to modest kitbashing, as welll as some Model T's (specifically, the '26/'27 Pheaton and the resin aftermarket turtleckeds...)  

Best Regards...TIM   

Edited August 22, 2015 by tim boyd

[tim boyd]

As promised a couple of days ago, I just did a comparo of the exhaust port spacing vs. the AMT-Ertl 1966 Riviera kit, the Revell lParts Pack Buick, and the AMT 32 Ford Custom/'40 Wiillys Double Kit Nailhead engine.

..  

Some of you have commented on the exhaust port spacing, suggesting that it is not entirely correct. I don't have a 1/1 Nailhead block out in the garage to measure, but i did do a comparison with some previous 1/25th scale Nailheads. In each of the following photos, I've highlighted the machined facing of the exhaust ports in red paint.

Here, the Revell '29 A Nailhead cylinder head on the left, the Revell early 1960's Buick Parts Pack engine on the center left, the late 1990''s AMT/Ertl '66 Riviera kit cylinder head on the center right, and another Revell '29A kit cylinder head on the far right.

It's hard to photograph in a way that allows an exact comparison, but these all appear very close in exhaust port spacing. Here it looks like the two center ports are closer together on the Buick Parts Pack engine, but this is less obvious looking at the actual parts.

 

I've posted six more photos including more cylinder head comparisons,, and exhaust header comparisons, at this link: http://public.fotki.com/funman1712/first-look-at-all-n/first-detailed-look/first-detailed-look/page4.html 

Start at image #73 and go from there.  As I point out there, this is an incomplete comparison without having the 1/1 scale component measured or photographed.  But at this stage, I think we can conclude that either the Revell  '29A Cylinder head exhaust port spacing is either correct, or very close to being correct.  

Thanks for looking...TIM 

 

Edited August 22, 2015 by tim boyd

[Don Sikora II]

what I am wondering about are those sprue attachment points on the very thin chrome parts like the radius rods.. I notice that at least some of them are on the downward facing, showing side. also there are those little bits attached to them that just terminate in a bit of tubular plastic. what are those for anyway? couldn't they be eliminated? can't trees like this be designed to not have sprue attachment points in particularly sensitive areas like that, or is it a matter of having to support the part in the mold, or having to being able to inject the plastic there?

whenever I see sprue marks like that on thin rods, I immediately begin planning to use straight pins or something in place of the rods. it would be nice though to get ones straight off the chrome sprue ready to use. my problem with the attachment points is not only do you have to somehow touch up the chrome after you've removed the sprue, but in actually smoothing that spot I always have trouble and end up making the rod just barely too thin there...and I can then see it  in the completed piece. in other words, no matter how much work I put into something like that it never really turns out as well as the original could have.

also I note that at least in the photos, the character line in the frame is terminated at the rear with a sprue attachment point. if that's really at the edge of the character line, that's gonna be pain right there.

also not real happy about the high cut of the wheels wells, I wonder how that's going to look with the highboy version? I know theres a pic on the box but in real life. I have to think its going to look too high in comparison to the tire. I think they will look great on the channeled rod and that's what I would build here. I hope they don't carry over that concept to the next (coupe?) version they bring out.

definitely going to buy one or more though no matter what. one of the best domestic kits I think I have seen in a while, as far as subject matter and execution goes.

jb

 

 

The tubular pieces you are talking about are lifter knock outs. They are purposely created when the knock out pins are located close to the part, rather than actually on it. The resulting piece of plastic gives the knock out a place to push on and eject the part from the mold. At the same time, these "lifters" double as a overflow tab which helps make sure the part fills completely and that it doesn't have a weld or knit line where the plastic meets as it fills from both side of the part. It's very important on a part like that, because even it it was fully molded the weld line would be a natural weak spot that would easily break, probably as the part was removed from the tree.

[jbwelda]

thanks tim and don, clears up some long standing mysteries for me.

jb

 

[Snake45]

Best Retards...TIM   

Tim, you're now in the running for Freudian Typo of the Week!

[Ace-Garageguy]

 

Looks to me like the new Revell head is a couple of scale inches off, port-spacing wise (it's "only" a couple of mm in 1/25 scale of course). 

I've always found the old Revell parts pack engines to look spot on. And exactly as I said, the outer ports on the new engine appear too close together, and the center ports appear too far apart compared to BOTH other engines.

This ruins the first impression of the engine for me entirely. I'll be putting all the engines from this kit up for trade... for those of you who don't see it or don't care...

I guess if a couple of scale inches is considered "very close to being correct", well...that explains a lot.

But hey, what do I possibly know about anything anyway.

In MY world, accurate measuring counts.

So do first impressions. We just took over two weeks designing and mocking-up a Carson top for a '32 Ford, making incremental changes sometimes as small as 1/4 inch in profile and curvature...1/4 inch on a REAL car...to get just the right look from every angle.

That's a lot trickier to do than measuring exhaust ports on something that already exists and dividing by 25.

And that kind of meticulous attention to line, flow and first-impression trains you to spot things that are just flat wrong, quite easily.

Edited August 22, 2015 by Ace-Garageguy

[tim boyd]

 

Looks to me like the new Revell head is a couple of scale inches off, port-spacing wise (it's "only" a couple of mm in 1/25 scale of course). 

I've always found the old Revell parts pack engines to look spot on. And exactly as I said, the outer ports on the new engine appear too close together, and the center ports appear too far apart compared to BOTH other engines.

This ruins the first impression of the engine for me entirely. I'll be putting all the engines from this kit up for trade... for those of you who don't see it or don't care...

I guess if a couple of scale inches is considered "very close to being correct", well...that explains a lot.

But hey, what do I possibly know about anything anyway.

In MY world, accurate measuring counts.

Bill, .would it be possible for you to provide the actual 1/1 scale dimension (e.g. centerline to centerline for each of the four exhaust ports)?   Also...just curious if you looked at the other six pictures on this subject at the link I provided?  Thanks  TIM 

Edited August 22, 2015 by tim boyd