Revell Deuce Tudor being reissued

[mrm]

Can someone show the decal sheet please?

Pretty much every single other part in it I am more than familiar with.

And I can not believe that yet again, we are having the boring standard 9" rear end and the same stupid tubular front axle. I mean seriously, how hard would it be at some point during the last 30 years to have offered a quickchange rear and an I-beam? ?

[Richard Bartrop]

2 hours ago, mrm said:

And I can not believe that yet again, we are having the boring standard 9" rear end and the same stupid tubular front axle. I mean seriously, how hard would it be at some point during the last 30 years to have offered a quickchange rear and an I-beam? ?

Apparently, it's hard enough, and it's certainly been covered enough times.  If you really have to have something different, there's certainly no shortage of donor kits and aftermarket parts.

[slusher]

Amazon puts too much fragile stuff in cheap bubble mailers..

[mrm]

11 hours ago, Richard Bartrop said:

Apparently, it's hard enough, and it's certainly been covered enough times.  If you really have to have something different, there's certainly no shortage of donor kits and aftermarket parts.

Thanks for the invaluable advice. I have plenty of 3D printed rear ends and my fair share of donor kits. 

And I am still going to buy a couple of these kits. The difference is that if Revell had put the aforementioned items in it, I would be buying a half dozen of them and not just a couple. My preferences or yours aside, please humor me why should I buy one of these kits if I have to buy/source the rear end, the front axle, the brakes and chop it myself, when I can just get an aftermarket body that's already chopped and mate it to any Revell '32 kit, which besides everyone having some, you can buy for $10? 

  I seriously don't follow the logic behind a lot of these reissues. these companies are all about profit and growth, no? Then every time you reissue a kit, introduce a new unique part in it. I think they got it almost perfect with the 32 Roadster. Reissued it as the Rat Roaster and then followed it with the current edition. The Rat Roaster introduced new wheels/tires, new windshield, new motor with unique setup and a whole new interior. The current edition introduced a Duval windshield, cool new exhaust and some cool interior options. Why can't they do the same with the rest of the 32s. The Dan Fink Speedwagon needs a Vicky Body with new "glass", new set of wheels for the big'n little tires from the original roadster/new sedan with a little more dropped I beam axle  and a plated quickchange rear and every guy who builds street rods would go for a case of that kit. I think their reissues would be considerably more successful if they at least offer brand new wheels every time. Because let's face it, there is no shortage of any of the Revell 32 fords in any of their release forms. So why would I spend $30 on something I can easily find for half that if it doesn't offer me anything new?

[Richard Bartrop]

21 hours ago, mrm said:

Thanks for the invaluable advice. I have plenty of 3D printed rear ends and my fair share of donor kits. 

 

I'm so very glad I could help.

[Justin Porter]

On 5/22/2024 at 1:45 PM, mrm said:

Thanks for the invaluable advice. I have plenty of 3D printed rear ends and my fair share of donor kits. 

And I am still going to buy a couple of these kits. The difference is that if Revell had put the aforementioned items in it, I would be buying a half dozen of them and not just a couple. My preferences or yours aside, please humor me why should I buy one of these kits if I have to buy/source the rear end, the front axle, the brakes and chop it myself, when I can just get an aftermarket body that's already chopped and mate it to any Revell '32 kit, which besides everyone having some, you can buy for $10? 

  I seriously don't follow the logic behind a lot of these reissues. these companies are all about profit and growth, no? Then every time you reissue a kit, introduce a new unique part in it. I think they got it almost perfect with the 32 Roadster. Reissued it as the Rat Roaster and then followed it with the current edition. The Rat Roaster introduced new wheels/tires, new windshield, new motor with unique setup and a whole new interior. The current edition introduced a Duval windshield, cool new exhaust and some cool interior options. Why can't they do the same with the rest of the 32s. The Dan Fink Speedwagon needs a Vicky Body with new "glass", new set of wheels for the big'n little tires from the original roadster/new sedan with a little more dropped I beam axle  and a plated quickchange rear and every guy who builds street rods would go for a case of that kit. I think their reissues would be considerably more successful if they at least offer brand new wheels every time. Because let's face it, there is no shortage of any of the Revell 32 fords in any of their release forms. So why would I spend $30 on something I can easily find for half that if it doesn't offer me anything new?

Because you're not the target audience. 

Revell is plenty aware of hardcore hot rod builders who will buy previous releases on the secondary market (shows, flea markets, clubs, eBay, etc) and then load them up with kitbashed and aftermarket parts to make highly detailed, highly personalized scale hot rods. 

Those builders make up a fraction of a fraction of the overall model car building hobby. Casual builders are the target, many of whom may not even be aware that Revell had previously released a '32 Tudor. The builders will be tempted by the comparatively high number of optional parts in this box relative to its shelf space competitors like the AMT Phantom Vickie AND it's significantly lower shelf price compared to that kit. 

There isn't a single newly tooled part in the Tudor's box and that's its ace in the hole for shelf price. Even as a singular fresh sprue, separately tooled so that it could be dropped in any of the Deuce kits, would have necessitated a bump in MSRP and a delay in release. 

[SpeedShift]

On 5/21/2024 at 11:42 PM, mrm said:

Can someone show the decal sheet please?

Pretty much every single other part in it I am more than familiar with.

And I can not believe that yet again, we are having the boring standard 9" rear end and the same stupid tubular front axle. I mean seriously, how hard would it be at some point during the last 30 years to have offered a quickchange rear and an I-beam? ?

 

[mrm]

8 hours ago, SpeedShift said:

 

Thank you. I greatly appreciate it. 

Funny thing is that after I posted the request as a read the thread one more time, I ordered a copy of the kit from Amazon and it arrived today, before I saw your post. 

This reissue is such a contradiction for me. I love to hate it and I hate to love it. I am supper happy they did it and I commend Revell for reissuing it, especially with the roadster wheels in it, but I am still somehow disappointed in it. 

  

[mrm]

 Something nobody has mentioned yet. THE KIT ACTUALLY COMES WITH THREE (3) SETS OF WHEELS and two sets of tires. Besides the spoked wheels original to the first edition and the Halibrands from the Roadster, the five spoke American Racing wheels are also included. 

[niteowl7710]

5 hours ago, mrm said:

Thank you. I greatly appreciate it. 

Funny thing is that after I posted the request as a read the thread one more time, I ordered a copy of the kit from Amazon and it arrived today, before I saw your post. 

This reissue is such a contradiction for me. I love to hate it and I hate to love it. I am supper happy they did it and I commend Revell for reissuing it, especially with the roadster wheels in it, but I am still somehow disappointed in it. 

  

While I understand your sentiment, the whole reason the "Rat Roaster" was new tooling is because the original '32 Ford tooling ran out of room to add more inserts. So aside from the cost of making new parts, there just isn't any room to put new parts in the kit. 

[SpeedShift]

8 hours ago, mrm said:

Thank you. I greatly appreciate it. 

Funny thing is that after I posted the request as a read the thread one more time, I ordered a copy of the kit from Amazon and it arrived today, before I saw your post. 

This reissue is such a contradiction for me. I love to hate it and I hate to love it. I am supper happy they did it and I commend Revell for reissuing it, especially with the roadster wheels in it, but I am still somehow disappointed in it. 

  

Thanks, looking forward to your build.

 

[mrm]

9 hours ago, niteowl7710 said:

While I understand your sentiment, the whole reason the "Rat Roaster" was new tooling is because the original '32 Ford tooling ran out of room to add more inserts. So aside from the cost of making new parts, there just isn't any room to put new parts in the kit. 

I understand that. I am not suggesting they have to make an entirely new tool. They can just make one new three. Like the interior one for example. Or the one with the SBF, which by now is neither modern nor vintage, but simply aged and outdated. Speaking of swapping tooling. If they swapped the sedan bod for a Phaeton the 3W for Pick up and the Dan Fink one for a Vicky, the '32 platform would become the undisputed best seller in the Company's history. And with each swap the chrome tree with the wheels and engine and window trim and the engine drivetrain tree. I'm not saying coming up with these changes every year, but we're talking about three decades here with pretty much nothing new. 

[niteowl7710]

13 hours ago, mrm said:

I understand that. I am not suggesting they have to make an entirely new tool. They can just make one new three. Like the interior one for example. Or the one with the SBF, which by now is neither modern nor vintage, but simply aged and outdated. Speaking of swapping tooling. If they swapped the sedan bod for a Phaeton the 3W for Pick up and the Dan Fink one for a Vicky, the '32 platform would become the undisputed best seller in the Company's history. And with each swap the chrome tree with the wheels and engine and window trim and the engine drivetrain tree. I'm not saying coming up with these changes every year, but we're talking about three decades here with pretty much nothing new. 

Your overarching 30k foot idea is a good one, however it unfortunately doesn't mesh with the reality of how model tooling exists in the real world. The 90s era '32 Ford tooling (3W, 5W, Roadster, Tudor & Speedwagon) exist as their own ecosystem with the body tools and the various engines and wheels being the swappable inserts. When the kit is run there's a certain fixed part of the kit that comes out no matter what kit is being run. My earlier point being on that base tool that all the inserts fit into - there is no more room for further inserts. So if they created the parts you suggest, they'd have to pull something else out - which means you'd only get one set of wheels or one engine option. I haven't sat down with all of the kits lately in front of me, it's quite possible you can't pull out those inserts without losing more than just a wheel set or engine, it might also lose part of the suspension or interior, or body parts specific to the wheel/kit set as well. 

More broadly you can't "swap" kits like you're suggesting. You'd have to run both tools in their entirety, mix and match the parts you wanted and then scrap the rest. That's labor consuming on both racking and running 2 tools for one kit, plus the actual manual labor of physically sorting and packing the right parts with the end product. Tooling can't be run without inserts (aka "Just run the body") because the plastic won't flow through the mold correctly.

[tim boyd]

9 hours ago, niteowl7710 said:

Your overarching 30k foot idea is a good one, however it unfortunately doesn't mesh with the reality of how model tooling exists in the real world. The 90s era '32 Ford tooling (3W, 5W, Roadster, Tudor & Speedwagon) exist as their own ecosystem with the body tools and the various engines and wheels being the swappable inserts. When the kit is run there's a certain fixed part of the kit that comes out no matter what kit is being run. My earlier point being on that base tool that all the inserts fit into - there is no more room for further inserts. So if they created the parts you suggest, they'd have to pull something else out - which means you'd only get one set of wheels or one engine option. I haven't sat down with all of the kits lately in front of me, it's quite possible you can't pull out those inserts without losing more than just a wheel set or engine, it might also lose part of the suspension or interior, or body parts specific to the wheel/kit set as well. 

More broadly you can't "swap" kits like you're suggesting. You'd have to run both tools in their entirety, mix and match the parts you wanted and then scrap the rest. That's labor consuming on both racking and running 2 tools for one kit, plus the actual manual labor of physically sorting and packing the right parts with the end product. Tooling can't be run without do(aka "Just run the body") because the plastic won't flow through the mold correctly.

Michael,,,,I know this explanation from James is pretty much a buzzkill, but he is exactly correct in his explanation of the complexities of model car kit tooling and developing derivatives of same.  As someone who has built probably 15 or more of these kits over the years, I sure share your desire for new bodies and new parts based off the tooling set, but I don't believe that is going to happen for the exact reasons James explains above.

The thought that crosses my mind is that if Revell Germany were to do new '32 versions, they would be well advised to look at the Rat Roaster tooling set - as modified for the most recent reissue - as the basis for additional derivatives.   That kit tooling has a number of upgrades over the original 1996 tooling set that make it a better build and a more accurate result to begin with.  And perhaps there is the flexibility in the tool for additional parts as was the case for the original 1996 tool.  One other consideration is that Revell's '32 Ford series was driven in large part by their VP the late Roger Harney, who was a 1/1scale hot rodder at heart and knew the subject very well.  While Revell Germany's remaining US based staff is capable of great work (e.g. the 1971 Boss 351 kit), to the best of my awareness they are not hot-rodding experts.  Revell's successful update of the Rat Roaster kit was largely based on input they solicited from non-company sources; they would need to follow a similar approach for any new '32 subject. 

BTW my choices would be a Vicky, a Phaeton, and/or a Roadster PIckup body.  A Model A rear crossmember, transverse leaf spring, and Halibrand Quick Change would be great, but I suspect this would be too much of a tear up for the tooling set (I had suggested that to Revell as part their update of the Rat Roaster, btw).  But I'd stick with a small block Ford V8, as it is still a very popular choice in the 1/1 scale hot rod world, but do it with updated componentry including the front accessory drive and intake/exhaust systems.   I'd take anything, though, other than an SBC.  In reality, I don't expect any of this to actually happen, but it is fun to speculate and dream about it nonetheless.   

Best....TB

Edited May 26, 2024 by tim boyd

[OldNYJim]

14 hours ago, tim boyd said:

Model A rear crossmember, transverse leaf spring, and Halibrand Quick Change would be great

I’m sure there IS a kit that includes these parts that can make for a relatively easy conversion to backdate these Revell Deuce kits to a more traditional rear suspension setup, maybe even with a 32 frame, but I can’t think of one right now…

The AMT T 2-in-1 T kits have the Quickchange and a suitable rear spring (and are easily available) but I wonder if there’s anything better out there as a parts source for someone who wants to take the street-rod out and put the ‘traditional’ into these kit?  The Atlantis (Revell) Mooneyes kit is probably a good parts source too, if you don’t mind fabricating the Model A crossmember…

Any ideas Tim?  I remember you backdating a Revell Deuce in the final Scale Auto I think, but I don’t have it to hand right now to recall how you did it…

[Chris V]

7 hours ago, CabDriver said:

I’m sure there IS a kit that includes these parts that can make for a relatively easy conversion to backdate these Revell Deuce kits to a more traditional rear suspension setup, maybe even with a 32 frame, but I can’t think of one right now…

The AMT T 2-in-1 T kits have the Quickchange and a suitable rear spring (and are easily available) but I wonder if there’s anything better out there as a parts source for someone who wants to take the street-rod out and put the ‘traditional’ into these kit?  The Atlantis (Revell) Mooneyes kit is probably a good parts source too, if you don’t mind fabricating the Model A crossmember…

Any ideas Tim?  I remember you backdating a Revell Deuce in the final Scale Auto I think, but I don’t have it to hand right now to recall how you did it…

There's an axle/crossmember/spring-conversion for the Revell '32 Fords available at Shapeways (Designed by Maple Leaf Modelworks) 

[mrm]

8 hours ago, Chris V said:

There's an axle/crossmember/spring-conversion for the Revell '32 Fords available at Shapeways (Designed by Maple Leaf Modelworks) 

I have those. Both the one designed for the Deuce frame in the '29/'30 kits and the one for the frame in the '32 kits. That's not the point tho. The point is that Revell could have easily revamp the  foundation of their '32 kits in the last 30 years. 

[tim boyd]

18 hours ago, mrm said:

I have those. Both the one designed for the Deuce frame in the '29/'30 kits and the one for the frame in the '32 kits. That's not the point tho. The point is that Revell could have easily revamp the  foundation of their '32 kits in the last 30 years. 

Could have...yes, no doubt. 

Easily? Not quite, especially when it comes to changes like the rear suspension/axle layout that we'd all like to see.  Go back and read the explanations from those how have worked in our have in-depth knowledge of the industry.  Frustrating, no doubt, but also the truth.  Especially when funding and human/supply base resource limitations and return on investment considerations are factored in, as like it or not, the modeling companies are businesses first.  Best...TB 

Edited May 28, 2024 by tim boyd

[stavanzer]

22 hours ago, tim boyd said:

Could have...yes, no doubt. 

Easily? Not quite, especially when it comes to changes like the rear suspension/axle layout that we'd all like to see.  Go back and read the explanations from those how have worked in our have in-depth knowledge of the industry.  Frustrating, no doubt, but also the truth.  Especially when funding and human/supply base resource limitations and return on investment considerations are factored in, as like it or not, the modeling companies are businesses first.  Best...TB 

I think the whole  point of Tim's reply is accentuate the fact that the Revell 32 tooling has no 'easily' anymore.

Could it be done? Maybe, Maybe not. There are probably only a handful of folks on the board who even seen the Revell 32 Ford tooling. And, unless you are a Tool & Die Maker, and have extensive experience with Model Tool Making, I doubt you could even understand the tooling with a guide.

This is not to say that we don't want new variants on the tool. Just that it is probably time & cost prohibitive to make any changes now. Revell is now a European Company, with a European Focus. They will run old tools for the American Market, but it is not their focus. I see Revell investing in American Tooling, (the 71 Mustang) slowly, as the Budget permits, but not like it was 30 years ago.

[Richard Bartrop]

Hot rods are very much an expression of personal taste, One person's dream machine is another one's aesthetic nightmare, and whatever they do to the kit, someone isn't going to be happy. 

[Dave Darby]

23 minutes ago, Richard Bartrop said:

Hot rods are very much an expression of personal taste, One person's dream machine is another one's aesthetic nightmare, and whatever they do to the kit, someone isn't going to be happy. 

That is so very true. And for builders like me, a kit is just the raw materials of a project. I don't just see what it is. I see what I can make it into. When I was in art class in Junior High, we got to pick our own projects to work on. My best friend and I picked model cars, and our teacher told us "Absolutely not!" as his view was that they were like putting a jigsaw puzzle together. My friend and I were able to make the case that we didn't build straight out of the box, and that we cut and swapped and customized our projects. He let us do it, and we both got A's. That said, the changes Revell made to the 32 Sedan made it even closer to what I would want than before. But again, are you a builder or an assembler?

[SpeedShift]

5 hours ago, Dave Darby said:

That is so very true. And for builders like me, a kit is just the raw materials of a project. I don't just see what it is. I see what I can make it into. When I was in art class in Junior High, we got to pick our own projects to work on. My best friend and I picked model cars, and our teacher told us "Absolutely not!" as his view was that they were like putting a jigsaw puzzle together. My friend and I were able to make the case that we didn't build straight out of the box, and that we cut and swapped and customized our projects. He let us do it, and we both got A's. That said, the changes Revell made to the 32 Sedan made it even closer to what I would want than before. But again, are you a builder or an assembler?

"are you a builder or an assembler?"

"a kit is just the raw materials of a project."

Totally agree.

The availability of aftermarket parts and resin bodies has enabled the creative process more than ever - and allowed much more personal expression.

I haven't built a kit "out of the box" as long as I can remember, but I understand why model builders gravitate to the OTB build, even in contests.

 For a project or two I've recently contemplated being an "assembler" again, going OTB to get a project done, or to refocus and hone my building and especially my painting skills.

 But every build to me is an opportunity to make a personal statement or recreate something that inspired me.

 

 

 

Edited May 29, 2024 by SpeedShift

[styromaniac]

I for one appreciate the addition of the "Out of Box" categories in local model shows/contests. Aside from the opportunity to decompress and just re-hone basic building skills after a period of super detailing a project...the more categories that are available... the better.

[Richard Bartrop]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with just wanting to build straight out of the box, and should you be tempted to label someone as "just" anything,  it's good to remember that no matter how good you think you are, there are builders out there who can quite simply blow you out of the water.

My impression of Revell's Deuce kits is that they're a nicely done version of what they're supposed to be, a contemporary-ish (as in nearly 30 years now)  hot rod, and it that's not your thing, they'll get you 80% of the way to what you do want.

 

[SpeedShift]

43 minutes ago, Richard Bartrop said:

There is absolutely nothing wrong with just wanting to build straight out of the box, and should you be tempted to label someone as "just" anything,  it's good to remember that no matter how good you think you are, there are builders out there who can quite simply blow you out of the water.

My impression of Revell's Deuce kits is that they're a nicely done version of what they're supposed to be, a contemporary-ish (as in nearly 30 years now)  hot rod, and it that's not your thing, they'll get you 80% of the way to what you do want.

 

" it's good to remember no matter how good you think you are, there are builders out there who can quite simply blow you out of the water."

Well of course that is true.

And that is a good thing to remember - whether you prefer building "out of the box" - or modifying a kit with scratch building and or aftermarket stuff.