AMT Model T?

[Aaronw]

Is this the same kit as the '25 T Round 2 is releasing in November?

I picked up two of these a few years ago and have never seen one since, so I'm hoping it is the same kit.

[Aaronw]

Thanks, it is one of the few kits to include a good stock Model T and pickup. I've had a number of ideas for mine but never built any since I was limited to the two kits and couldn't decide. Now I can since I can get some more later in the year.

[Guest Davkin]

Does that kit have a better stock chassis, engine and suspension than the other "T" kits? I have the '27 Touring and '23 Depot Hack and the accuracy and detailing on the suspension and engine are quite poor.

David

[Aaronw]

Does that kit have a better stock chassis, engine and suspension than the other "T" kits? I have the '27 Touring and '23 Depot Hack and the accuracy and detailing on the suspension and engine are quite poor.

David

I don't have either of those kits to compare, but there isn't much detail to a real Model T's suspension and chassis, so it looks ok to me. It does offer a couple of engine options, a 4 cyl and a V-8 with various performance modifications.

[Modelmartin]

The depot hack and the C-cab panels were different tooling and had real crappy fenders and artillery wheels. The 27 touring is a pretty decent kit. The ERTL buyers choice kits pictured didn't have either the chopped or stock height coupe bodies in them.

Hard to find but Aurora did a 21 T that was actually somewhat more nicely detailed than the AMT Trophy series kit. It was a double kit with a T hotrod that was really weird.

[Guest Davkin]

but there isn't much detail to a real Model T's suspension and chassis,

The front axle and suspension are very visible on a T and the axles on both kits look really wrong. I suppose it would be hard to make an axle in styrene that would have a truely scale look in 1/25 and have enough strength since the 1:1 is very spindely looking. The engine in the '23 Hack is actually okay except it's missing a couple pieces, the engine in the '27 is horrible, too many parts molded in.

David

[Eshaver]

Uh Arron , and Dave , in defense of both Kits, ( A M T "s 25 and 27 ) First there were several differences to the two kits from 1960 when the origional 1925 Model T Roadster and Coupe came out and then in 1965 , the 1927 Tourer. Even then , over the years depending upon which issue or re-issue you are looking at , you will get a diferent "Custom interior" . The Black plastic era origionals had a Roll and pleat custom interior until the "Stock - Hight " coupe came along in 1965 along with a Biscuit Tufted interior along with winshield supports added and a Beer Keg gasoline tank. Then about 1970, A M T did a never re-released 1923 Model T roadster that had of all things a multi piece frame and a Chevro;et engine optional. This kit had seperate rims and Vynil tires . I think that this was about the same time That A M T did the Fruitwagen and the C-cab trucks . I wish I had either one of those but I wil not pay the Yuppie prices that are being put on them .

Now here in you can use the kit that you pictured as I beleive that that was the last re-issue of the roadster . That kit should have the seperate rims and tires that would be considered " CORRECT" up until 1926 when WIRE WHEELS WERE OPTIONAL. The wire wheels can be found in the 1927 kit . Still, note that inorder to build a Correct 1927, you will need to modify the cowl area as the tank was moved from under the seat in 1926 . Also , the hood was changed in 1926 to dispel heat from the engine as well Now to my opinion on which axle and engine are better? Uh mabye the engine in the 27 is a slight bit better in the 27 model. Personaly I think that the Chassis -axle assembly are fine as they are in the 1925 kit too. Just remember that these kits were made from 1-10th scale models and they were in my opinion great for their time . Look way too much of the computer assisted stuff that we enjoy today aint a whole heck of a lot better than we had fifty years ago. By the way , My 1953 Ford Truck has already outlasted yer Toyota !

Ed Shaver

[Art Anderson]

Uh Arron , and Dave , in defense of both Kits, ( A M T "s 25 and 27 ) First there were several differences to the two kits from 1960 when the origional 1925 Model T Roadster and Coupe came out and then in 1965 , the 1927 Tourer. Even then , over the years depending upon which issue or re-issue you are looking at , you will get a diferent "Custom interior" . The Black plastic era origionals had a Roll and pleat custom interior until the "Stock - Hight " coupe came along in 1965 along with a Biscuit Tufted interior along with winshield supports added and a Beer Keg gasoline tank. Then about 1970, A M T did a never re-released 1923 Model T roadster that had of all things a multi piece frame and a Chevro;et engine optional. This kit had seperate rims and Vynil tires . I think that this was about the same time That A M T did the Fruitwagen and the C-cab trucks . I wish I had either one of those but I wil not pay the Yuppie prices that are being put on them .

Now here in you can use the kit that you pictured as I beleive that that was the last re-issue of the roadster . That kit should have the seperate rims and tires that would be considered " CORRECT" up until 1926 when WIRE WHEELS WERE OPTIONAL. The wire wheels can be found in the 1927 kit . Still, note that inorder to build a Correct 1927, you will need to modify the cowl area as the tank was moved from under the seat in 1926 . Also , the hood was changed in 1926 to dispel heat from the engine as well Now to my opinion on which axle and engine are better? Uh mabye the engine in the 27 is a slight bit better in the 27 model. Personaly I think that the Chassis -axle assembly are fine as they are in the 1925 kit too. Just remember that these kits were made from 1-10th scale models and they were in my opinion great for their time . Look way too much of the computer assisted stuff that we enjoy today aint a whole heck of a lot better than we had fifty years ago. By the way , My 1953 Ford Truck has already outlasted yer Toyota !

Ed Shaver

Well said, Ed!

It's pretty hard, I suspect for adult builders nowadays who are significantly younger than say, 55yrs or so, to remember the context of the times in which AMT engineered and tooled those Model T Ford kits. Plastic model car kits started out as a "kid thing", made for younger hands, the average age of a model car builder was perhaps no older than 13. It was we then-preteens and teenagers of the 60's who cut our permanent teeth on model car kits--as far as we were concerned, adults need not apply. That's the primary reason for wire axles, one-piece molded plastic chassis pans, even screwdriver assembly of chassis to body on those annual series customizing kits of the day.

The '25 T Double Kit was a step beyond even AMT's earlier Trophy Series offerings, those being the '32, '36 and '39-'40 Fords, particularly in the suspension detail department--if you want to see truly oversized front axles, just check out those V8 era Ford kits AMT did back then. Wire axle assembly did make it possible for younger hands to assemble those two Model T kits, they could stand the stress of a possibly frustrated 12yr old, give him a successful experience, which hopefully would bring him back to the hobby shop for more model car kits (and it did, and they did!). This precluded the use of the many very small parts that would have made truly superdetailed Model T scale replica's of course. As for "molded on" parts on those T engines, about the only item that could have been made separately would have been the lower water pipe and hose, but then, just about everyone molded numerous subassemblies as units back then--each of these kits, being double kits ('25 T stock roadster and chopped coupe street rod, '27 T Touring and XR6 show rod), the parts counts were very high, probably not room for many more separate small parts in the tool (itself a huge block of steel, weighing well over a ton). Additionally, the building frenzy for these kits wasn't the stock version, but rather being creative, doing wild hot rods out of them. I don't think I ever saw any stock ones built back in the day other than the ones I did.

The '25 T Double Kit was tooled and released in 1961, the kit hitting store shelves about the middle of September that year, and as such, represents pretty much the state of the art of plastic model kit layout and design. Same with the '27 T, which hit the shelves in late spring, 1964--again pretty much state of the art at that time. It's also well to understand that there was nothing at all like CNC, nor even CAD yet, certainly not down at the level of model kit companies--their kits started on old fashioned drafting tables, went to hand-carved basswood tooling masters at least 2X the size of the final product, every part having to be carved freehand by a patternmaker. Tooling was cut entirely mechanically, by vertical mills set up with 3-D pantagraphs, a stylus following the shapes and contours of each wooden master (small parts masters were inserted into larger blocks of wood, making the layout of the tooling itself, then reproduced in an early urethane resin as a tool section, which was then pantagraphed. Contrast that with today, when CNC, and EDM (Electro-Discharge Milling) can do the same jobs with almost infinite precision, and in far less time. Those early kits were engineered to be shot in fairly hard styrene, which meant visible "draft angles" (now you know why your Model T cylinder head didn't fit nice and flush with the top deck of the block without some filing!), in order to get the molded parts out of the tooling once cooled, without damaging either the tooling, or the finished parts trees.

To have made that front axle, and its leaf spring, exactly to scale in styrene would have meant a very delicate, fragile piece, with almost no strength at all, particularly at the outer ends (Revell had that problem with their beautiful, for the day, 1929 and 1931 Model A Ford kits, those have a very spindly front axle unit, if you've ever seen or built one!). Even today, to scratchbuild correct units such as these, if done exactly to scale, likely investment cast brass would be the only way to get truly usable parts, that wouldn't just simply collapse, or at least warp under the weight of the model they support.

Yeah, there are compromised dimensions in many areas of such model car kits, but all in all, with some careful work, and some added detailing, their compromises can be at least minimized to the point that your attention really isn't drawn immediately to them.

Andy's got a point as well, about the AMT '23 T station wagon and delivery van--those just don't stand the test of either time, nor the visual test for accuracy. Fender beadrolling motifs that are a full inch tall in scale, outrageously heavy-handed wood wheels, with questionable PVC tires (the original AMT '25 kits came with gorgeous one piece wheel/tire assemblies, that have the correct Firestone tread, and are right on the money for 30X2 1/2 clincher tires--nice to see that Round2 is bringing those wheels and tires back--it's been a LONG time.

As for the '25 T Fruit Wagon with the TT C-cab, that variation was produced in 1965-66, the C-cab and the fruit wagon insert for the already existing pickup box were from a separate small tool, the resulting parts dropped in the kits. They had the same chassis, fenders, suspension, wheels and tires as the previous issues of the kit.

But the bottom line is, without those reissues, we'd likely not have any Model T Ford kits today, period. I rather doubt that the perceived sales potential of such subjects today would not permit the expenditure of many 10's of thousands of dollars to develop and tool truly accurate kits in today's state of the art. So, now you have my $2 worth (I won't write this many words for two cents, sorry!).

Art

[Guest Davkin]

I just knew you'd chime in here Art and give us the complete run down on the history of the T kits, thanks for the info. I do want to build an accurate and detailed '23 TT and these kits will provide some parts but I do see a lot of scratchbuilding in my future. An accurately scaled frame and front axle would definately be too weak to make out of styrene. For the axle I was thinking of making a brass/styrene hybrid. The brass would provide the basic shape and strength, stryene would used to add the detail. I have built the Revell '31 Model A axle and it is quite a challenge and very fragile.

I remember you mentioning a T project of your own. I think you said you were scratchbuilding the engine, is that correct? I beleive you have access to 1:1 Model T's, right? That would sure be a big help! As simple as the Model T is compared to modern cars, you find it's actually not that simple when you attempt to accurately scratchbuild one.

David

[Aaronw]

Thanks, I'll probably be doing my first as a pickup, but I'll be picking your brains for info on converting the kit to a TT down the road after the kit comes out.

Edited May 26, 2009 by Aaronw

[Art Anderson]

Thanks, I'll probably be doing my first as a pickup, but I'll be picking your brains for info on converting the kit to a TT down the road after the kit comes out.

For a TT conversion, about the only mechanical and structural stuff that would be usable would be the front axle and front spring. Even the TT truck had different wheels, same number of spokes, but about twice as thick. Front tires could be either the 20X3 1/2 tires as used on passenger cars (the front axle of a TT only had to carry the front part of the vehicle, the weight of the cargo was essentially balanced over the rear axle, as well as solid rubber tires. The rear tires, if pneumatic, were 33" (outside diameter over the tread) high pressure tires, about twice the width of the passenger car tire, in addition to available solid rubber tires which like the high pressure tires, were about twice the width of the front solid tires that were available. Note: Model TT trucks could not be fitted with dual rear wheels, pretty much the same as with most all other trucks of the era--there were no weight restrictions then, as are in place today. In addition, wooden artillery wheels just didn't have the strength to be set, one wheel outboard of another, and with demountable rims, tire changes would have been nearly impossible (you demounted just the rim to do a quick roadside change, the wheel itself couldn't be easily unbolted from the hub, and almost never were, except to replace bearings or an axle shaft).

While the TT frame is the same width across the rails as the passenger car, the frame rails themselves are much deeper channel steel, about 5" or so tall, with fully 3" flanges top and bottom. TT used the same style rear spring, but this was much larger; wider leaves and more of them. TT's used a much different rear axle (although it still was torque tube drive, with long radius rods to keep the rear axle and torque tube in alignment), but instead of the Model T ring and pinion, the TT rear axle was worm drive construction.

The front end sheet metal was the same as the passenger car: Same front fenders, radiator, hood and firewall. The roadster body could be had, as could (after 1924) an open C-cab, a closed cab, in addition to the roadster. Running boards are passenger car units, shortened, but with no splash aprons between running board and the bottom sills of the cab.

An easier conversion, believe it or not, might well be the Smith Form-A-Truck, which was an extended frame unit that slipped, telescope style, over the outside of the passenger car frame, the Smith frame rails being about a foot outboard of the stock passenger car frame, tapered in toward the front, where they bolted to the stock frame, just ahead of the flywheel housing of the engine. The Form-A-Truck conversions came with a beam rear axle, a set of sprockets and drive chains, as well as a set of heavy parallel semi-elliptic rear springs to mount the new axle on. You just eliminated the passenger car rear spring, clamped the passenger car rear axle solidly to the bottom of the modified frame, replaced the stock wheel hubs with a pair of drive sprockets, then stretched the roller chain from those, back around the driven sprockets for the truck rear wheels.

Art

[Guest Davkin]

TT used the same style rear spring, but this was much larger; wider leaves and more of them

My research shows that the TT used quarter ellipticals, still mounted transversly however. Also the TT had larger brakes, (12"?).

David

[Art Anderson]

My research shows that the TT used quarter ellipticals, still mounted transversly however. Also the TT had larger brakes, (12"?).

David

David,

What you see in pics that looks like a pair of quarter-elliptic rear springs, mounted transversely, actually is the tradtional Ford transverse semi-elliptic leaf spring. Here's a pic of a TT, set up as a semi-tractor unit, that I took at the Centennial T Party at the Wayne County IN Fairgrounds in July 2008. While this pic doesn't really show it, the leaf spring does arch up into the top of the arch of the rear crossmember, but does have a few overload spring leaves clamped in, at the outer reaches of the crossmember, as this truck is considerably heavier than standard. Those extra leaves are, in effect, quarter-elliptics. Frankly, that rear crossmember would not have taken the stress of being open, and empty in the middle, of full quarter-elliptic springs, without cracking and breaking.

Also worthy of note is the worm drive rear axle, which was used on TT Trucks from their beginning in 1917, and continued in use without change, on 1928 to midyear 1929 Model AA trucks. In addition, what were parking brake drums on ordinary Model T's (merely cast iron shoes against a pressed steel drums (Rocky Mountain Brakes with their friction linings, were mounted inside the stock rear drums, but were aftermarket) were fitted into larger drums on the TT, and supplemented the standard single brake band inside the Model T transmission.

Art

[samdiego]

and my research shows that you guys are part of why this site is the best source for model car info ever and is the best model hangout on the planet

oh yeah, there's the magazine, too

Edited May 27, 2009 by samdiego

[blazefox]

Is this kit worth the buy

Edited February 23, 2012 by blazefox

[trogdor]

If you are talking about this kit , I would say yes it's worth it.

[blazefox]

No im talking about the chopped coupe kit

AlthoUgh was thinking about an unchopped rat rod too

[Eshaver]

Steve , if you want a totally "Vintage " hot rod , I would say yes . I know the price is a might steep. still, this kit has soooooooooo much potential as per doing so many of the "Aftermarket " bodies offered by outside contractors that flourished in the 1920's . Streching a Model T Frame and adding heftier tires isn't that hard . You should be able to source them from either a Monogram race car kit or from a resin caster . I know over the years , I have built several of these Model T's in various forms . Ed Shaver

[blazefox]

Thanks ed. I like the old school rods and rat rod styleing and price isnt bad at all

This is thee kit ive seen

Can tall t fit pn t bucket chasis

[Rob Hall]

Both are interesting old kits, have lots of building variations possible.

[horsepower]

The two kits are virtually identical the only real difference is in the coupe body, personally I preferred the unchopped body, but that's just my opinion

[Craig Irwin]

With two compleat models in the box the price seems quite reasonable to me.

[trogdor]

Actually the pic I posted is what I found on a google search. I just recently picked up that kit for 24.00 from my LHS. Model car roundup has it for 24.90.

[Eshaver]

Rick, I haven't bought A M T's latest Repop, the Tall T . In the 1965 box, the one that is represented by the art on this issue , the interior had a "Biscuit Tuff Interior as opposed to the former "Roll- N-Pleat the 1960 or Chopped issue had reinstated . The Beer Keg gasoline tank was also a 1965 addition too. Also, the two windshield struts that attached at the front were also 1965 additions found on the chrome tree. Wheels as I recall were the Cragar wheels as in the 1960, they were Full Moon discs. Ed Shaver

[blazefox]

Thanks for all your help. Im gonna have fun with this retro rod