DTR/AMT 1932 Ford Jalopy kits

[Chris V]

Back in the late 00's "Dirtrack Racecars" commissioned AMT to do a series of "Jalopy" themed kits from their range of 1932 Ford tooling.

The kits were criticized for their misleading boxart featuring extensively rebuilt models with numerous parts not included in the kit.

However I was wondering if anyone can tell me, if this particular version of the 5-Window Coupé is molded in grey or white styrene?

(It might sound utterly ridiculous, but the plastic color is actually important for a vintage themed kitbash-project I'm currently contemplating)

 

Edited Wednesday at 11:43 AM by Chris V

[sidcharles]

maybe a jumping off point. sorry; this is the best i've got:  32 Ford Jalopy Stock Car, AMT/ERTL 21709P

i did have this one, and it was white:  32 Ford Vicky Jalopy Stock Car Model Kit # 21710 | eBay

 

maybe:   32 Ford Jalopy Stock Car Fast Freddy Model Kit 1:25 SCALE. | eBay

Edited Wednesday at 01:10 PM by sidcharles

[Chris V]

4 minutes ago, sidcharles said:

maybe:   32 Ford Jalopy Stock Car Fast Freddy Model Kit 1:25 SCALE. | eBay

Thanks - that gave me exactly the information I was looking for!

My mistake not checking Ebay-listings before asking...  

[sidcharles]

hey: it takes a village.

[Ace-Garageguy]

2 hours ago, Chris V said:

Back in the late 00's "Dirtrack Racecars" commissioned AMT to do a series of "Jalopy" themed kits from their range of 1932 Ford tooling.

The kits were criticized for their misleading boxart featuring extensively rebuilt models with numerous parts not included in the kit.

However I was wondering if anyone can tell me, if this particular version of the 5-Window Coupé is molded in grey or white styrene?

Mine is white...and man was I miffed when I opened the box expecting to find all kinds of cool parts and found exactly zip beyond the normal kit.

Put me off of buying any new AMT kits for quite a while...like years

Somebody really ought to have communicated the negative connotations of "bait and switch" or other deceptive practices to the marketing dwerbles.

[Chris V]

58 minutes ago, Ace-Garageguy said:

Mine is white...and man was I miffed when I opened the box expecting to find all kinds of cool parts and found exactly zip beyond the normal kit.

Put me off of buying any new AMT kits for quite a while...like years

Somebody really ought to have communicated the negative connotations of "bait and switch" or other deceptive practices to the marketing dwerbles.

It was indeed a dark time under the previous-ownership, before Round2 took over and turned things around. 

I think, the worst case I've ever seen was the "Buyers Choice" reissue of MPC's 1969 Dodge Charger 500, issued around the millennium: The box art car had obviously been kitbashed from parts from AMT's 1969 Plymouth GTX and wheels of unknown origin.  

[Shark]

1 hour ago, Ace-Garageguy said:

...and man was I miffed when I opened the box expecting to find all kinds of cool parts and found exactly zip beyond the normal kit.

I know exactly what you mean. I was sitting in my recliner when I opened that kit. When the realization of what was in the box hit, the box and contents went sailing across the room. Probably still some parts behind the TV hutch 

[Mark]

And, right after RC2 ran those kits for DTR, they ran another bunch of the coupes for Walmart, in the under $7 "checkerboard box".  Only difference was the decals.

There was a later run of those for DTR in an original style Trophy Series box.  The parts illustration on the side panel showed the brackets for the cycle fenders, but not the fenders themselves (because those weren't in the box).

[sidcharles]

1 hour ago, Shark said:

I know exactly what you mean. I was sitting in my recliner when I opened that kit. When the realization of what was in the box hit, the box and contents went sailing across the room. Probably still some parts behind the TV hutch 

and Mr Carpet Monster smiled

[stavanzer]

Well, I missed out on those Coupes.

I really wish I'd scored a couple. I need a few more '32s.

[blizzy63]

6 hours ago, stavanzer said:

Well, I missed out on those Coupes.

I really wish I'd scored a couple. I need a few more '32s.

...And there's the question:

WHERE is the AMT '32 Ford Coupe kit now...?

[sidcharles]

whether right or wrong, i think Revell's kits have overshadowed AMT's efforts across the board.

[Chris V]

2 hours ago, blizzy63 said:

...And there's the question: WHERE is the AMT '32 Ford Coupe kit now...?

I think the last reissue of the AMT 1932 5-Window Coupé was around 2010. It may have something to do with Revell's release of their newly tooled 5 Window Coupé in 2011. 

To the best of my knowledge the AMT 1932 Roadster was last reissued as part of the "Pro Shop"-series back in 1998.

1 hour ago, sidcharles said:

whether right or wrong, i think Revell's kits have overshadowed AMT's efforts across the board.

There's no disputing that Revell's series of '32 Fords are miles ahead of the outdated early sixties tooling from AMT.

Despite their shortcomings the old AMT kits have a certain nostalgic appeal, and are surprisingly enjoyable to build - especially since they offer the same degree of parts-interchangeability as the modern Revell kits.

On previous occasions I've argued, that the entire series of AMT 32 kits could be revitalized simply by adding classic hot rod tires and a small "universal" sprue with a few carefully selected upgrades including: a better looking dropped front axle, a dropped headlight bar, 1939 Ford/1950 Pontiac taillights, and perhaps a set of finned heads/dual carb intake for the flathead.    

[stavanzer]

2 hours ago, Chris V said:

On previous occasions I've argued, that the entire series of AMT 32 kits could be revitalized simply by adding classic hot rod tires and a small "universal" sprue with a few carefully selected upgrades including: a better looking dropped front axle, a dropped headlight bar, 1939 Ford/1950 Pontiac taillights, and perhaps a set of finned heads/dual carb intake for the flathead.    

You are so correct!

Bring back all the AMT '32s.

[Ace-Garageguy]

Much as I like the old AMT '32s, the single most glaring issue is the way the lower body edge is too short (height) and rises way too much...entirely wrong...going forward to the cowl.

ALL the AMT '32s suffer from this.

It's always been a source of wonderment to me. At that time in history, AMT's kit designers were doing a pretty decent job of measuring and scaling with their "primitive" tape measures and calipers and long division.

How they dropped the ball so blatantly on THE MOST ICONIC hot-rod in the history of the known inhabited universe is quite beyond me.

It's entirely fixable, but it takes some applied skill and effort.

Reasonably correct Revell '32 3W coupe on the left, short-cowl AMT Victoria on the right, below. ALL their '32 Fords get this wrong.

Corrected AMT Victoria body shell on AMT rails, with Revell fenders (lower door line needs to be re-scribed too).

.

 

Edited Thursday at 01:47 PM by Ace-Garageguy

[Ulf]

Building AMT classic 32s is a stable subculture on forums and Facebook groups, Round2 should see the intangible value in this and reissue these.

[stavanzer]

9 minutes ago, Ulf said:

Building AMT classic 32s is a stable subculture on forums and Facebook groups, Round2 should see the intangible value in this and reissue these.

I could not agree more, Ulf!

[blizzy63]

5 hours ago, Ace-Garageguy said:

Much as I like the old AMT '32s, the single most glaring issue is the way the lower body edge is too short (height) and rises way too much...entirely wrong...going forward to the cowl.

ALL the AMT '32s suffer from this.

It's always been a source of wonderment to me. At that time in history, AMT's kit designers were doing a pretty decent job of measuring and scaling with their "primitive" tape measures and calipers and long division.

How they dropped the ball so blatantly on THE MOST ICONIC hot-rod in the history of the known inhabited universe is quite beyond me.

It's entirely fixable, but it takes some applied skill and effort.

Reasonably correct Revell '32 3W coupe on the left, short-cowl AMT Victoria on the right, below. ALL their '32 Fords get this wrong.

 

I believe that AMT designing their 1932 Ford Model "B" Roadster back in 1959 with a built-in 3-scale-inch section through the body was done to produce a cool looking hot rod model (the stock-version accuracy just had to suffer). The design of the '32 Ford body needed to be close, not absolutely perfect. Remember, this was the first time AMT went outside of producing model car promos and kits for the U.S. auto manfacturers (the 1958 and 1959 model car kits didn't have engines and opening hoods yet).

Yes, Revell out-did themselves in the '90s in producing their superb hot rod/street rod '32 Ford kits.

But while Revell got on the ball to satisfy the modeling 'purists', at the same time, there also lurked the 'nostalgists': the hot rod and model kit historians and rat-rodders who have an eye for the style, spirit and flavor of the early days of hot rods and drag racing.

AMT was there at the early years of styrene plastic model kits to give the kids a taste of the hot rod scene.

These same, early kits survived four decades pretty much intact to give the old-timers their 'nostalgia' and the younger generations a taste of history and the style of the past.

I agree that with some restoration, some additional "speed equipment" parts, and some appropriate 'vintage' decals, these early, surviving kits can maintain a decent fan base.

[Ace-Garageguy]

3 hours ago, blizzy63 said:

I believe that AMT designing their 1932 Ford Model "B" Roadster back in 1959 with a built-in 3-scale-inch section through the body was done to produce a cool looking hot rod model.

I disagree, but you can believe anything you want.

I've been building real cars for over 5 decades, was an avid fan of the hobby/sport for years before I joined it actively (I was reading the car mags from cover to cover when today's "nostalgia" or "period" rods were state-of-the-art current fashion), and I've NEVER seen a section job anything like that on a real car.

Sectioning jobs most frequently...by a large margin...keep the revised post-section lower body line parallel to the original.

Look again at the photo of my corrected AMT Victoria above, and it's plainly obvious from the shape of the white added material necessary to correct the thing that the stock body does NOT represent a "3-scale-inch section through the body".

I HAVE built a model or two making the excuse for the odd lines that it's a "wedge section" or "wedge channel" necessitated by the imaginary builder having started with a body shell that had much more rust in front than in the rear...maybe even rotted off entirely.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As an aside, I agree that the existing AMT '32 Ford kits can be a lot of fun to build the way they came, as can the early and quite primitive Monogram '32 roadster and their oddly scaled coupe of the same era, but personally, I usually prefer my own models to reflect reality more accurately.

Different strokes and all that.

Edited Thursday at 11:38 PM by Ace-Garageguy

[blizzy63]

1 hour ago, Ace-Garageguy said:

...I've NEVER seen a section job anything like that on a real car...

Totally respect your position, Bill.

I just think that, in 1959-60, hot rods were in vogue and AMT was just putting out a hot rod model kit for the hobby market with limited basis to an actual '32 Ford car.

[Ace-Garageguy]

3 hours ago, blizzy63 said:

...But while Revell got on the ball to satisfy the modeling 'purists', at the same time, there also lurked the 'nostalgists': the hot rod and model kit historians and rat-rodders who have an eye for the style, spirit and flavor of the early days of hot rods and drag racing.

And another thing. One of the most frequent criticisms of Revell's very nice '32 Fords is that they can NOT be built stock from what's in the boxes.

The Ford 9" rear ends on coil springs are wrong, the K-member on the frame just doesn't exist, and there's no stock engine or gearbox or wheels-tires-brakes-front axle-interior either.

Hardly satisfying for any modeling "purists" I know.

EDIT: I'm NOT trying to be argumentative...at all.

I like both Revell's and AMT's '32 Fords just fine.  

Edited Thursday at 11:55 PM by Ace-Garageguy

[blizzy63]

26 minutes ago, Ace-Garageguy said:

And another thing. One of the most frequent criticisms of Revell's very nice '32 Fords is that they can NOT be built stock from what's in the boxes.

The Ford 9" rear ends on coil springs are wrong, the K-member on the frame just doesn't exist, and there's no stock engine or gearbox or wheels-tires-brakes-front axle-interior either.

Hardly satisfying for any modeling "purists" I know.

EDIT: I'm NOT trying to be argumentative...at all.

I like both Revell's and AMT's '32 Fords just fine.  

I had that in mind about the Revell '32s not buildable as stock. But I appreciate Revell's efforts so I left that fact out. I also kept in mind that the AMT '32 Fords can be built as stock but they aren't perfect.

When I say "purists", I'm thinking of the modellers I've known that want to build '32 Ford street rods in the same way 1:1 hot rodders build their cars: high realism, separate suspensions, exhaust, seats, etc., etc. (The rear-view Roadster in your picture above would be an example of this; It's certainly not one of the early kits!)

Nice models, by the way!

[Mark]

The earliest AMT Deuce (roadster with raised top, rear mount spare, and trunk lid molded closed) was probably designed with little or no access to an actual car, only pictures.  That could have been the root of the lower body issues. 

The dimensional error was probably continued in the other body styles as a conscious thing, to maintain continuity and make more parts interchangeable between all of them.  

I did once see an "in progress" photo in one of the rod magazines (Hot Rod Mechanix?) where a guy was building a fiberglass Deuce roadster of his own design.  He scaled up the AMT roadster kit body, sectioning and all.  I never saw anything about it again; hope he finished it...

[Ace-Garageguy]

1 hour ago, blizzy63 said:

(The rear-view Roadster in your picture above would be an example of this; It's certainly not one of the early kits!)

Actually, it is an early AMT kit roadster body on an AMT '32 coupe chassis (they had a separate axle), and it's the same model as in the first photo, later in the process. It was built with no post-mid-1960s parts except the valve covers and a couple more bits from a Revell '50 Oldsmobile...and the Duvall windshield from AMT's "Phantom Vicky".

Here's the build thread if you're interested.

 

Edited yesterday at 01:34 AM by Ace-Garageguy

[blizzy63]

3 minutes ago, Ace-Garageguy said:

Actually, it is an early AMT kit body and chassis (the same model as in the first photo, later in the process), built with no post-mid-1960s parts except the valve covers and a couple more bits from a Revell '50 Oldsmobile.

Here's the build thread if you're interested.

 

Wow. You fooled me. Great job!

You’re a styrene magician… 👍