Revell 32 Ford Roadster REVISED (former Rat Roaster tool)

[Plowboy]

The original Roadster had a master cylinder. Don't know why it disappeared from the Rat Roaster. 

[stavanzer]

Because they are two totally different tools. The have nothing but the Body Style in common.

[Plowboy]

58 minutes ago, stavanzer said:

Because they are two totally different tools. The have nothing but the Body Style in common.

Pretty sure they they share the same chassis setup with a K member. I have a RR. So, I can check.  

[stavanzer]

It was a "Big Deal", when the RR came out, that it shared nothing with the OG Roadster, except design philosophy. 

[Plowboy]

I remember the "big deal" being that practically nothing under the model was true to the real car. Well, except for the nine inch rearend and hairpin rods. But, the rearend still has the airbags from the original roadster along with a lot of other parts. The K member on the RR still has the peg to mount the booster and master cylinder to. It just doesn't have it. I mocked up the exhaust and K member on the RR frame and there's plenty of room for a booster and master cylinder. So, if anyone wants to add one, just snag one from an earlier version '32 Ford. Here's a chassis photo of the Rat Roaster. 

Now I understand why everyone was so worked up about the chassis! 

[tim boyd]

On 12/16/2022 at 12:17 AM, CabDriver said:

Interesting to note that this frame is the only one in the Revell 32 Series (I think) that has the notch in the frame rails for the exhaust.  I hadn’t immediately spotted that.

About the worse part of this entire series of kits for me was the awkward ejector pin marks on the floorboards under the frame.  I didn’t unwrap my kit yet, but if they did something to help make that chore less chore-like then that would be a real bonus 

Jim is correct about the notch in the frame for the pipes from the Sanderson style over the frame headers to the underbody mufflers being unique to the newly issued kit (and of course the previous Rat Roaster kit that formed the basis for the new release).    

And while the Rat Roaster (and now fresh revised reissue) tool is clearly based on the work for the original Revell 1996/97 series of '32 Ford Hot Rods, there are refinements and revisions that would only have been made possible by it being produced in fresh tooling.  Build the two Roadster kits (the '97 and the '22 revision of the Rat Roadser) side by side and you'll see what I am talking about.  Just one small example?  Compare the door handles of the original kit with the ones in the new one.  Far more sculptural and finely wrought.   Want a bigger one?  The '32 Ford siderail frame sweep is handled much more deftly - requiring much less effort to refine - than on the original '32 Ford Hot Rod kit series. 

Yes, there are carryovers from the original 1996 design effort - that tab for the brake booster and the K-member as just two examples - but having built both versions, my take is that the newly reissued version based on the Rat Roaster is clearly superior and I will be using it as the basis of all my future '32 Ford hot rod projects (other than, of course, the SBC engine - smile!) 

TB 

[espo]

18 hours ago, Plowboy said:

The original Roadster had a master cylinder. Don't know why it disappeared from the Rat Roaster. 

Looking at the K cross member, on the driver's side facing the rear of the car, a part looking very much like a brake booster with a pultrusion to the rear looks very close to a brake master cylinder. Could this be what you're looking for? 

[Plowboy]

23 minutes ago, espo said:

Looking at the K cross member, on the driver's side facing the rear of the car, a part looking very much like a brake booster with a pultrusion to the rear looks very close to a brake master cylinder. Could this be what you're looking for? 

That is the brake booster and master cylinder. That model is an original issue from '96. The Rat Roaster issued in 2013 didn't come with the booster and master cylinder. 

[Chuck Kourouklis]

Yup, tooling cut from entirely virgin steel.  Made it more galling to me than I've yet admitted publicly that so much of the '96 patterns carried through plainly clashing with the subject, though in the end, I guess it was just cheaper that way.

Flip side of it all is, with the elimination of such a specific reference and some worthy new parts, this version should be MUCH more agreeable.  All I might have picked out of a gift horse's teeth would be the beam axle that should have come with the Roaster.

1 hour ago, tim boyd said:

...Yes, there are carryovers from the original 1996 design effort - that tab for the brake booster and the K-member as just two examples - but having built both versions, my take is that the newly reissued version based on the Rat Roaster is clearly superior and I will be using it as the basis of all my future '32 Ford hot rod projects (other than, of course, the SBC engine - smile!) 

TB 

Beside's Tim's general observations that this tooling is considerably more refined, I also have to land squarely on his page this time about the SBC, even if it is a fact of life in hot-rodded Fords.  Maybe it was needed for a representation of the Rat Roaster (however INCOMPLETE AND NOMINAL), but why in the '29-'30 tooling, say?  Can't have too many flatheads, and a nice new Ardun-headed version, maybe with an intake we haven't seen before, woulda been just the ticket.

Oh well.  Second-guess in one hand, you know what in the other, see which fills first...

Edited December 17, 2022 by Chuck Kourouklis

[Dennis Lacy]

4 hours ago, Chuck Kourouklis said:

Beside's Tim's general observations that this tooling is considerably more refined, I also have to land squarely on his page this time about the SBC, even if it is a fact of life in hot-rodded Fords.  Maybe it was needed for a representation of the Rat Roaster (however INCOMPLETE AND NOMINAL), but why in the '29-'30 tooling, say?  Can't have too many flatheads, and a nice new Ardun-headed version, maybe with an intake we haven't seen before, woulda been just the ticket.

I used to feel the same way about SBC’s, then I put one in my ‘32 Pickup and now completely understand! ??? It is just a fact of life that the SBC is the most traditionally used hot rod engine, ever.

That said, the original release of the ‘29 Roadster included a beautifully rendered Buick Nailhead with two induction choices and it’s still available in the reissue of the ‘30 Coupe. 

[OldNYJim]

Following on from my previous post, and Tim’s comments above, I broke out my new Roadster frame and compared to an original ‘96 version.

Turns out, as Tim notes, there’s some nice corrections, including that improved curve from the mid to the back of the frame…but best of all for me is that they DID do something about those awkward-to-clean-up ejector pin marks hidden down in the floorboards on all the original kits.  You can kinda make them out here - there’s eight in total, plus the copyright notice:

On the new one…not a single ejector pin on the bottom of the frame.  Still has the copyright notice, with updated date, but WAY WAY WAY better:

[Calb56]

1 hour ago, Dennis Lacy said:

I used to feel the same way about SBC’s, then I put one in my ‘32 Pickup and now completely understand! ??? It is just a fact of life that the SBC is the most traditionally used hot rod engine, ever.

That said, the original release of the ‘29 Roadster included a beautifully rendered Buick Nailhead with two induction choices and it’s still available in the reissue of the ‘30 Coupe. 

Bought the 29 roadster for the Nailhead, ended up with a sbc. I understand the sbc being used since the 50s...but I'd love a "traditional" suspension set up, just once.

[Dennis Lacy]

3 hours ago, Calb56 said:

...but I'd love a "traditional" suspension set up, just once.

THAT I completely agree with. ??

[Kiwi_Bloke]

5 hours ago, Calb56 said:

Bought the 29 roadster for the Nailhead, ended up with a sbc. I understand the sbc being used since the 50s...but I'd love a "traditional" suspension set up, just once.

There are two kits of the '29 Roadster, one has the Nailhead with two options for the intake, the other has the SBC. The images below have the Nailhead.

 

[niteowl7710]

11 hours ago, Calb56 said:

Bought the 29 roadster for the Nailhead, ended up with a sbc. I understand the sbc being used since the 50s...but I'd love a "traditional" suspension set up, just once.

Since the tooling was fixed and the kits reissued, the Nailhead is now in the '30 Coupe.

[Chuck Kourouklis]

On 12/17/2022 at 3:04 PM, Dennis Lacy said:

I used to feel the same way about SBC’s, then I put one in my ‘32 Pickup and now completely understand! ??? It is just a fact of life that the SBC is the most traditionally used hot rod engine, ever.

That said, the original release of the ‘29 Roadster included a beautifully rendered Buick Nailhead with two induction choices and it’s still available in the reissue of the ‘30 Coupe. 

I actually like the nailhead/coupe combo better than the original arrangement. ?

Academic, anyway, 'cause swapping engines in the same basic tooling wouldn't be a problem at all.

[Dennis Lacy]

4 hours ago, Chuck Kourouklis said:

I actually like the nailhead/coupe combo better than the original arrangement. ?

I’m with you. I prefer the Coupe with the Nailhead and the Roadster with the SBC. Then again, I’ve built 2 Coupes and 2 Roadsters and haven’t used either engine so far! ?

Edited December 20, 2022 by Dennis Lacy

[Rocking Rodney Rat]

One thing that has ALWAAYS bugged me about the original '32 frame is that at on the back of the frame rails, one side is thinner than the other. (see CabDrivers side by side frame pic above). When building a fenderless version it's noticeable. I add a piece of sheet styrene and widen that thinner rail to match the other side. Just one of those things most won't notice, but has always messed with my feng shui. That has been fixed with the new roadster but then one has to fill in the exhaust notch in the rails... -RRR

[Plowboy]

1 hour ago, Rocking Rodney Rat said:

That has been fixed with the new roadster but then one has to fill in the exhaust notch in the rails... -RRR

And sand away the bump in the reveal. That will be a tricky little task.

[Rocking Rodney Rat]

9 hours ago, Plowboy said:

And sand away the bump in the reveal. That will be a tricky little task.

Yeah, I know. I tried it. Not that easy..... -RRR

[stavanzer]

So, has anybody completed a build of this newly Updated '32 Roadster kit?

How did it fit? Any Issues to be aware of? Would you build another?

[stavanzer]

Well, I found one at least.

 

 

[tim boyd]

1 hour ago, stavanzer said:

So, has anybody completed a build of this newly Updated '32 Roadster kit?

How did it fit? Any Issues to be aware of? Would you build another?

Yes, fit was fine, don't recall any major issues.  Will definitely build another....TB

[Plowboy]

I've never built one these newer roadsters. I've always used them for parts. Usually the bucket seats, engine/transmission, rearend, disc brakes and wheels/tires.   

[Chuck Kourouklis]

Slick!  Purty ride there, Tim!

I can tell you the Roaster built up just fine, so Tim's results are no surprise.

Been my experience that the initial Deuces - the 3-window and the Speedwagon from '96, the roadster from a couple months later - were all delightful to build, even with the slight deficit of refinement as compared to this version from 17 years later.  Those were rude, paintless fit-assessment builds for the ranking article of the year and I've lost track of them, but I can flip up the Roaster for a contrast with Tim's...

Huh.  Only now, 8 years later, do I realize that I never blacked out the exits of those side pipes...

As for the later '96 tooling variations like the 5-window and the sedan, I haven't done those yet and I'd be a little more circumspect about them; retools often invite new fit problems.  I'd welcome a correction on that, though...

Edited December 22, 2022 by Chuck Kourouklis