A Detailed Preview of Revell's Upcoming '30A Chopped Five Window Hot Rod....

[Allen Wrench]

However, moving on, perhaps a flathead option would have been nice. Or would that be out of keeping with the general ambience of the model?

 

While I have no insider info like Tim does, my guess would be that Revell concluded that there are enough rodded flatheads available in kit from that anyone who wants to use one in one of the Model A kits can make that swap themselves. And it's an easy swap to make. Personally, I'm glad Revell decided to do this kit with an SBC.

[Ace-Garageguy]

Complain ? Or voice an opinion ? 

Exactly. 

Far as the smallblock Chebby and the Ford 9" rear end go, you really have to remember that the VAST MAJORITY of rods built today have just that combination. Revell already had a 9" setup, and I would imagine the little Chebby shares at least some tooling with the engine in the Rat Roaster. You can't please everybody, so build a kit that reflects what the majority of real-world cars are running, try to bring it in at a reasonable price, and let model rodders do the rest. God knows, the two Revell hot-rod kits are the best new rod-fodder we've seen in a long time...and for as many guys who were clamoring for a '29 roadster and a '30 coupe a few years back, you'd think there would be a lot of excited jumping up and down now that they've arrived.

Revell has already made available a nice Olds Rocket in the '50 kits, and a decent Buick nailhead in the '29 roadster. There's an old-school Chrysler Hemi in one of the '32 kits, a smallblock Ford is represented, and Revell kits have several versions of the venerable flathead Ford...not to mention the Ardun OHV conversion. That's got what you're going to see in a real rod pretty well sewed up. Engine swapping is relatively easy, if you just think it through.

And if you just GOTTA have a buggy-spring rear and a quick-change, Replicas and Miniatures has you covered...and the parts are absolutely exquisite.

It's just not that hard to do a leaf-spring / quick-change swap in these new Revell chassis, anyway. Look at the end of this thread (click the link below) and you'll see how to make a crossmember, and as I complete the build over the next few weeks, all will be revealed. 

Edited March 7, 2016 by Ace-Garageguy

[Greg Myers]

Just plain and simple, and it works.  

[exesivefire]

Exactly. 

Far as the smallblock Chebby and the Ford 9" rear end go, you really have to remember that the VAST MAJORITY of rods built today have just that combination. Revell already had a 9" setup, and I would imagine the little Chebby shares at least some tooling with the engine in the Rat Roaster. You can't please everybody, so build a kit that reflects what the majority of real-world cars are running, try to bring it in at a reasonable price, and let model rodders do the rest. God knows, the two Revell hot-rod kits are the best new rod-fodder we've seen in a long time...and for as many guys who were clamoring for a '29 roadster and a '30 coupe a few years back, you'd think there would be a lot of excited jumping up and down now that they've arrived.

Revell has already made available a nice Olds Rocket in the '50 kits, and a decent Buick nailhead in the '29 roadster. There's an old-school Chrysler Hemi in one of the '32 kits, a smallblock Ford is represented, and Revell kits have several versions of the venerable flathead Ford...not to mention the Ardun OHV conversion. That's got what you're going to see in a real rod pretty well sewed up. Engine swapping is relatively easy, if you just think it through.

And if you just GOTTA have a buggy-spring rear and a quick-change, Replicas and Miniatures has you covered...and the parts are absolutely exquisite.

It's just not that hard to do a leaf-spring / quick-change swap in these new Revell chassis, anyway. Look at the end of this thread (click the link below) and you'll see how to make a crossmember, and as I complete the build over the next few weeks, all will be revealed. 

Perfect 

[stavanzer]

Well, I'll wind up with a Blown SBC Roadster, and a Buick powered Coupe. I just prefer the blower in a Roadster, and I've been holding off building mine until the kit came out.  The new Mag Wheels that Tim speaks of will also find their way onto the roadster as well. I'm REALLY look forward to bashing these kits together. At the March Meets 3 days ago, I helped judge the Car Show. Out of the 40+ 1920's-1930's Rods on show, at least 30 were Chevy powered, split 24 SBC, 5 BB, and one lone 348 "W" motor mocked up to look like a 409.

I saw 7 Ford Powered Rods and Three Hemi's. So the SBC still rules in the real world, at least the March Meets. You see a wider variety at the Hot Rod Reunion in October, when the Rods are older and more traditional. So Revell, has it nailed, at least from where I sit.

 

Alan

[Richard Bartrop]

Small block Chevies are as much a part of hot rod heritage as flatheads, and for the same reasons, and to not have it as an option over some arbitrary standard of hipness is just stupid.  Besides, the whole SBC hate is itself such a tired cliche.  It's an attempt to look imaginative and unconventional in the most conventional and unimaginative way possible. 

And as Ace said in his post, it's easy enough to make something more to your liking.

[mrm]

I see it only took three posts for somebody to complain.

Read my post again and buff up your comprehension skills. 

[mrm]

I can think of at least three different ways I would like to build the coupe using three different variations of the provided engines in the '29/'30 kits. I am one of the people who IS jumping up and down with joy for the release of both of them. Now I can just hope that Revell will follow up in the steps of their '32 kits and offer more variations. I personally have no problem with SBC. The problem with the rear end comes from the lack of a very nicely detailed one that could be borrowed from another kit, let alone one with a buggy spring on it. 

  I fully understand the need to keep costs down. I also understand that since the '29/'30 kits are all new tooling, it would have made no difference in cost if they were made with quick change rear end. And no, I am not complaining, but rather thinking out loud and sharing my failure to understand the logic behind Revell's decision. 

[Robberbaron]

Revell has already made available a nice Olds Rocket in the '50 kits, and a decent Buick nailhead in the '29 roadster. There's an old-school Chrysler Hemi in one of the '32 kits, a smallblock Ford is represented, and Revell kits have several versions of the venerable flathead Ford...not to mention the Ardun OHV conversion. That's got what you're going to see in a real rod pretty well sewed up. Engine swapping is relatively easy, if you just think it through...

Don't forget the Caddy mill in the Revell Merc kits, or the 348 in their '58 Impala.  Come to think of it, I think the only first generation GM OHV V8 NOT recently tooled by Revell would be the Pontiac, but there are other sources such as the AMT '62 Pontiac, the new Moebius '61 kits, or the old parts packs...

[Robberbaron]

Having been somewhat privy* to this kit during its design phase, I can assure you that somebody thought about changing the rear end.  I don't know when or why it was changed to the Ford, but that was not what was spec'd in the initial design.  IIRC, the roadster was supposed to have a finned aluminum Buick unit (a somewhat modern choice, but keeping with the Buick-themed driveline) and the coupe was supposed to have a quick change.   As Tim said, I wouldn't be surprised to see one pop up in later versions.  I guess somebody high up at Revell must really like Ford rear ends. 

* i know a guy who knows a guy...

I seem to recall that the first set of test shots for the roadster that Revell publicly displayed actually had a Dana rear end, so maybe it changed more than once from the initial design.  At least the 9" is a common choice in the 1:1 world, which is probably the reason they switched to that from the Dana.  Imagine the bellyaching if they'd followed through with that one...

[Spex84]

I'm very excited. A while back I was analyzing leaked photos and thought maybe the top would be separate because I could see slight gaps near the base of the A pillars, but then...naww, they wouldn't bother with that, would they? Happy to see I was right! Now the aftermarket guys will be able to offer stock-height roof units, and it will be cheaper than ordering an entire resin body (I hope).

It doesn't take much to patch in a rear crossmember from a Monogram '30 kit or Revell '29 PU. A number of kits feature quickchanges--the Orange Crate, Double Dragster, Double T, even the Paddy Wagon and Pie Wagon show rods have 'em.

As for engines...the SBC doesn't exactly excite me, but it's acceptably period-correct and ubiquitous (so a no-brainer choice). My problem is I have too many engines that I want to put in this thing! Nailhead, Olds Rocket, Cadillac 331, '57 Chrysler hemi, studebaker V8, flathead...how about adapting that 6-71 to the top of the '50 Olds Rocket mill? Yow!

How about adding fender aprons (but no fenders) from a '30 woody or even a Monogram '30 for that Pendine Sands/Race of Gentlemen look?

Or dropping the body onto the Double Dragster fiat frame for a sweet Altered?

 

[Jantrix]

Small block Chevies are as much a part of hot rod heritage as flatheads, and for the same reasons, and to not have it as an option over some arbitrary standard of hipness is just stupid.  Besides, the whole SBC hate is itself such a tired cliche.  It's an attempt to look imaginative and unconventional in the most conventional and unimaginative way possible. 

And as Ace said in his post, it's easy enough to make something more to your liking.

Interesting point. I've complained about the SBC myself in previous threads. I always strive to build something unique. Not to look imaginative, but because I am imaginative. But I am looking forward to this kit. I'll add a parts pack Pontiac and the SBC will likely find a home in something else.

Tim, one question though. One of the most popular complaints about the roadster was that even the channeled version seemed to have an unusually high stance. Has that carried over to the coupe?

Edited March 8, 2016 by Jantrix

[Allen Wrench]

Small block Chevies are as much a part of hot rod heritage as flatheads, and for the same reasons, and to not have it as an option over some arbitrary standard of hipness is just stupid.  Besides, the whole SBC hate is itself such a tired cliche.  It's an attempt to look imaginative and unconventional in the most conventional and unimaginative way possible. 

And as Ace said in his post, it's easy enough to make something more to your liking.

Truthiness. Rodders have been using SBCs as power sources for what, more than 60 years now? IMO, an SBC trimmed out with vintage speed accessories looks as cool between the rails of a rod as anything.

[tim boyd]

Interesting point. I've complained about the SBC myself in previous threads. I always strive to build something unique. Not to look imaginative, but because I am imaginative. But I am looking forward to this kit. I'll add a parts pack Pontiac and the SBC will likely find a home in something else.

Tim, one question though. One of the most popular complaints about the roadster was that even the channeled version seemed to have an unusually high stance. Has that carried over to the coupe?

Rob...as far as I know, the chassis stance remains as it was before.  But I don't totally share the view that the kit has an unusually high stance.  Could it be lower?  You bet!  Have I made this change on most of the ones I have build so far?  Yes, but mostly at the front for the highboy version only.  Does the channeled version sit too high?   Probably so, but they probably set it up with the lowest chassis stance that could be engineered into a kit that allowed both Highboy and Channeled versions in the same box with some carryover parts for both versions.  My last build was the Channeled version, and I lowered the stance both front and rear for that one.  Sort of the "secret handshake" that separates serious hot rod modelers from the more casual modelers who build box stock only.    Just my views here, but I also realize that most of the people who care enough to read this thread will probably agree 100% with your view on this....thanks for the question...TIM     

PS - for reference, here's a box stock build of the highboy version with the stock stance....I personally prefer just a bit of forward rake,and that's how I am setting up my follow-up kitbashed builds....but I don't know that I would call this box stock view an unusually high stance for a street driven 1/1 scale '29 on '32 rails highboyTB

  

 

[louie]

I'm very excited. A while back I was analyzing leaked photos and thought maybe the top would be separate because I could see slight gaps near the base of the A pillars, but then...naww, they wouldn't bother with that, would they? Happy to see I was right! Now the aftermarket guys will be able to offer stock-height roof units, and it will be cheaper than ordering an entire resin body (I hope).

It doesn't take much to patch in a rear crossmember from a Monogram '30 kit or Revell '29 PU. A number of kits feature quickchanges--the Orange Crate, Double Dragster, Double T, even the Paddy Wagon and Pie Wagon show rods have 'em.

As for engines...the SBC doesn't exactly excite me, but it's acceptably period-correct and ubiquitous (so a no-brainer choice). My problem is I have too many engines that I want to put in this thing! Nailhead, Olds Rocket, Cadillac 331, '57 Chrysler hemi, studebaker V8, flathead...how about adapting that 6-71 to the top of the '50 Olds Rocket mill? Yow!

How about adding fender aprons (but no fenders) from a '30 woody or even a Monogram '30 for that Pendine Sands/Race of Gentlemen look?

Or dropping the body onto the Double Dragster fiat frame for a sweet Altered?

 

 

 

x2 about the excited part and I love the way you think about the rest of your post. Good stuff.   Thank you.     Jeff 

[Richard Bartrop]

Truthiness. Rodders have been using SBCs as power sources for what, more than 60 years now? IMO, an SBC trimmed out with vintage speed accessories looks as cool between the rails of a rod as anything.

The earliest SBC swap I know of was in the R&C Dream Truck in the fall of '54, so yes, pretty much since they first left the factory. 

I like the flatheads, but the small block is just the thing if you wanted to do a late '50s or later period rod.   

The fact is, there are a million plus different ways to build a hot rod, and everyone has their own ideas on what looks good, so however they did this kit, someone's not going to be happy.

[Richard Bartrop]

I always thought Dick Patterson's 60s vintage Model A coupe looked pretty neat, and it occurred to me that between the new Model A kit, and the wheels and engine from AMT's Surf Woody, you could get pretty close.

[redneckrigger]

Outstanding review Tim...good work! And NOW I'm pumped to get one!

[tim boyd]

I always thought Dick Patterson's 60s vintage Model A coupe looked pretty neat, and it occurred to me that between the new Model A kit, and the wheels and engine from AMT's Surf Woody, you could get pretty close.

Wow Richard...don;t recall seeing this one before...it is SO cool!   Thanks for posting the picture...TIM

[Snake45]

I have a question about A coupes.

I don't particularly care for that visor-thingie over the windshield. Were these ever built without them? Or was their removal ever a hot-rodding or customizing "thing"? I'd love to build the kit without that, but I can't recall ever seeing one without it.

[Greg Myers]

Yes , there were a few. The Murray body fordor and the Victoria. 

[Dennis Lacy]

I have a question about A coupes.

I don't particularly care for that visor-thingie over the windshield. Were these ever built without them? Or was their removal ever a hot-rodding or customizing "thing"? I'd love to build the kit without that, but I can't recall ever seeing one without it.

Ford never built any Model A coupe without the visor. Over the years some hot rods have been built without them. Probably the best example would be Brian Bass' '29 Coupe. He grafted in the windshield header area and modified windshield frame from a '32 Ford. If you "Google" his name and car tons of images come back, some videos too.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8239/8474428363_59f776de92_b.jpg

Edited March 9, 2016 by Dennis Lacy

[Greg Myers]

Ford never built any Model A coupe without the visor.

Pictures of Ford cars , albeit Murray bodied, above?  OKay, not coupes. 

Edited March 9, 2016 by Greg Myers

[Greg Myers]

Just poke some holes in it.  

Edited March 9, 2016 by Greg Myers

[afx]

Wonder how close these are to the final version?

Edited March 9, 2016 by afx