Whatever happened to the AMT/ERTL 34 Ford Sedan?

[Oldcarfan27]

I know their 5 window kit was reissued about 20 years ago, but I haven't heard or seen anything about the sedan and street rod since 1988.

Nice kits, even if the shape of the roof looks a little wonky.

Anybody else interested in a reissue?

[Mark]

Both the coupe and sedan use the same chassis.  But no body panels interchange except for the hood side panels.  The sedan was WAY off, I would suspect the coupe conversion was done without any thought of going back to the sedan.

[Dave Van]

The version they did with all the stock and hot rod parts would be a great reissue. It was out only once IIRC......

[Plowboy]

I started building the yellow version years ago. The biggest issue I discovered on it was the shape of quarter glass. It's too rounded and drops down a bit at the top rear. Pretty easily fixed. The rear of the roof can be fixed with some sanding. The grille on the box is nothing like the grille in the box. The grille in the yellow sedan is actually the most accurate of the AMT kits. It has more of a V to it. The hood sides are also much better than those in the five window. I was actually able to open the louvers on the hood sides on mine. IIRC, it's got some pretty cool aftermarket flathead parts. I'd like to get the '33 sometime just to check out the parts and such in it. I think it's street rod only.

[Can-Con]

I have a stock re-builder that I may hotrod some day but it would need a lot of body work to look like a '34 Ford sedan body.

As Mark said above, it's way off. If I just came across the body in a parts box and didn't know about this kit I wouldn't think it's a '34 Ford. It really is that far off.

[Mark]

What really kills the sedan is the fenders.  Way too narrow, narrower even than all of the Model A kits out there.  The sedan got a huge backlash when it was released, Ertl probably created the 5W coupe in order to recycle the chassis tooling.  One of the kit designers at Ertl owned a '34 coupe, probably still does.

But, a new sedan, based on the 5W coupe fenders...now you're talking...

[keyser]

Woody ftw, 33/34 build options on the chassis. I have 5W rod somewhere but never got by the looks. Doubt high on revamp list, dead end tool

[Ace-Garageguy]

2 hours ago, Mark said:

...a new sedan, based on the 5W coupe fenders...now you're talking...

I think a good 3-window would be the real hot ticket to get a little more mileage out of the old tooling.

There's never ever been a good 3W in 1/25. They all have serious proportion issues.

Tool a stock 3W body shell, throw in a louvered extra decklid like Revell did with their 5W coupe, and I'd buy a case of the things.

Edited August 20, 2022 by Ace-Garageguy
CLARITY

[Mark]

Revell might eventually have gotten around to a series of '34 kits, but I doubt it now.  They got a lot of mileage out of the '32s, and there are still more body styles that could be done for that year.

For whatever reason, it seems that the '33-'34 shape is tough to capture in scale.  I've thought about stubbing a 3W roof from the MPC Slammer dirt track body onto an AMT 5W coupe.  Or are the two bodies different widths, as in '32?

[Ace-Garageguy]

6 minutes ago, Mark said:

...I've thought about stubbing a 3W roof from the MPC Slammer dirt track body onto an AMT 5W coupe.  Or are the two bodies different widths, as in '32?

I've thought the same thing, but haven't measured yet. I've worked on stretching the too-short nose on the Revellogram snapper, but haven't tried raising the chopped top yet. I've also been working on modifying the kinda OK body from the otherwise awful AMT 3W kit, and that's promising. And out in my very limited shop in Az., I started a swap of the Revellogram snapper, sans hood, on to the AMT 5W.

But AMT's pretty OK 5W, with a new-tool 3W body shell...it just seems like a slam dunk to get some geezer bucks while we're still kicking.

Strike while the iron is hot...or at least before we're all back to room-temperature.    

[Plowboy]

This is my favorite build of this kit. It was built by Greg Pugh. Until I saw this model, I had no interest in this kit. But, after I saw it, I had to have one!

Besides the things I mentioned earlier, I'm just not seeing the things that are so bad about it. IIRC, the only changes Greg made were the engine and rolling stock. To me, it's not nearly as bad as most kits from Moebius and it was tooled thirty plus years ago. Maybe I'm just not familiar enough with the subject.

[Ace-Garageguy]

54 minutes ago, Plowboy said:

This is my favorite build of this kit. It was built by Greg Pugh. Until I saw this model, I had no interest in this kit. But, after I saw it, I had to have one!

I have to agree, that looks great...

...but maybe this will help to illustrate some of the inaccuracies:

Edited August 20, 2022 by Ace-Garageguy

[Can-Con]

It's mostly the top and side windows are way too square. It doesn't have those soft, graceful curves the real car does.

Also, not shown on the model in the pic is the hood, which is too flat and squared off compared with the real car.

Edited August 20, 2022 by Can-Con

[Robberbaron]

9 hours ago, Mark said:

For whatever reason, it seems that the '33-'34 shape is tough to capture in scale.  I've thought about stubbing a 3W roof from the MPC Slammer dirt track body onto an AMT 5W coupe.  Or are the two bodies different widths, as in '32?

Here's a build from Phildaupho where he did exactly that:

Edited August 21, 2022 by Robberbaron

[Oldcarfan27]

12 hours ago, Mark said:

For whatever reason, it seems that the '33-'34 shape is tough to capture in scale.

Revell did a 34 that was spot on. Looked correct, but it was 1/16 scale and was not anywhere near stock. I've heard that they have since lost the wooden master that that pantographed it from. To top it off, they've never reissued it either. Probably because it's forever stuck in the 80s with billet parts and pastel graphics. 

The original Monogram had a very nice stock version in 3 window and roadster. Both of those have since been chopped, so stock bodies are no longer available. Plus the scale is 1/24.

Ace is right, there are no good 33-34 Fords in 1/25 scale and that's a shame, as it's one of Fords most iconic designs ever!

[Can-Con]

11 hours ago, Oldcarfan27 said:

Revell did a 34 that was spot on. Looked correct, but it was 1/16 scale and was not anywhere near stock. I've heard that they have since lost the wooden master that that pantographed it from. To top it off, they've never reissued it either. Probably because it's forever stuck in the 80s with billet parts and pastel graphics. 

The original Monogram had a very nice stock version in 3 window and roadster. Both of those have since been chopped, so stock bodies are no longer available. Plus the scale is 1/24.

Ace is right, there are no good 33-34 Fords in 1/25 scale and that's a shame, as it's one of Fords most iconic designs ever!

Yes, there were two kits. A 2 window coupe and a phaeton. Both looked fantastic. 

The Phaeton had the billet wheels and looked very '80s/'90s on the box. 

The 3 window has a nice set of Halibrands that would still be very acceptable on a current build.

Both kits had the option of being built without without fenders. Some of the details are a bit dated as is the decals but if they were done in 1/25 those would be moot points as we'd be sourcing other parts from various kits anyway. 

If these two were done in 1/25 instead of 1/16 they would still be flying off the shelves.?

[37 caddy]

I have a couple of the AMT sedans,im not impressed with the body details,i do have a real 33 sedan,i was dissapointed in it when i opened the box,roof is a disaster,i chopped one of them,but it has never been completed. The big 1/16 kit looks better,didnt even know they made one until a month ago,seen one on Ebay,was going cheap until the last few minutes,sold for 120.00 i think,im to frugal for that. harvey

[Oldcarfan27]

9 hours ago, Can-Con said:

If these two were done in 1/25 instead of 1/16 they would still be flying off the shelves.

Absolutely true! Just like a certain 69 Camaro that came out right around the same time.

[stavanzer]

I remember Tom Gaffney in a Column for Scale Auto when this kit came out, saying that the reason folks though that the kit looked wrong was that everybody was so used to seeing '34 Sedans only as Street Rods, with many body parts massaged to make them fit better. That if you looked at a stock '34 Sedan that the body looked correct.

I don't know if that opinion has any legs, or has been proven wrong in the last 20+ years, but That is what I remember reading. I have the kit, and think it is great except for one thing no one has mentioned.

The Totally Undersized and Mis-shapen stock Wheels with the puny shrunken tires. The Sidewall to tread ratio is completely off visually. The just look bad on the kit.

 

[Rocking Rodney Rat]

IMHO that AMT 33/34 kit is so out of proportion that it makes the kit useless....agreed it would be awesome to see Revell do a decent job of the Model 40. Probably wont ever happen (in my ever shortening lifetime).... -RRR

[Ace-Garageguy]

21 hours ago, stavanzer said:

I remember Tom Gaffney in a Column for Scale Auto when this kit came out, saying that the reason folks though that the kit looked wrong was that everybody was so used to seeing '34 Sedans only as Street Rods, with many body parts massaged to make them fit better. That if you looked at a stock '34 Sedan that the body looked correct.

I don't know if that opinion has any legs, or has been proven wrong in the last 20+ years, but That is what I remember reading...

Ummm...no.

     

The proportion and line discrepancies between a stocker and the kit are screamingly obvious to me.

A lot of folks in and around this hobby seem to have some difficulty comparing and contrasting...but Mr. Gaffney may also have said what he said to avoid p-ing off an advertiser in the mag by being critical of the kit. Those things happen in the real world.

 

[Ace-Garageguy]

12 hours ago, Rocking Rodney Rat said:

...agreed it would be awesome to see Revell do a decent job of the Model 40...

Seein' as how R2 already has pretty OK tooling for the 5W, it would make much more sense for them to either do a corrected 2dr sedan shell to fit the existing 5W fenders and hood, and/or do a 3W coupe likewise.

Revell's obvious slam-dunk to get more mileage from their recent model A kits with the '32 rails would be to tool a '26-'27 roadster body shell, as that's always been and still is a very popular combo for traditional rods.

    

       

Edited August 25, 2022 by Ace-Garageguy

[tim boyd]

1 hour ago, Ace-Garageguy said:

Seein' as how R2 already has pretty OK tooling for the 5W, it would make much more sense for them to either do a corrected 2dr sedan shell to fit the existing 5W fenders and hood, and/or do a 3W coupe likewise.

Revell's obvious slam-dunk to get more mileage from their recent model A kits with the '32 rails would be to tool a '26-'27 roadster body shell, as that's always been and still is a very popular combo for traditional rods.

    

       

Bill is spot on with his comments here.  And yes, this has been proposed to Revell.  Several times, in fact.   TB 

[1972coronet]

2 hours ago, Ace-Garageguy said:

A lot of folks in and around this hobby seem to have some difficulty comparing and contrasting...but Mr. Gaffney may also have said what he said to avoid p-ing off an advertiser in the mag by being critical of the kit. Those things happen in the real world.

I remember that kit review, but couldn't recall its author - I thought it was by Tim Boyd, but wasn't sure.

The proposition that the AMT'34 exhibited factory stock proportions, at least cab wise, catalysed me 17 year old mind. 
I held off from buying a copy for the simple fact that I despised AMT's godawful Good Year Rallye GT "snow tyres"; and certainly, the atrocious box art didn't sweeten the deal. 
I didn't have any 'parts box' tyres at the time because 99% of my modelling supplies and kits were destroyed during the 1987 Whittier Earthquake.
____________ _________________ _______________________ ___________________________ ___________________________ _______________________________ __________________ ____________________________

Oh, how I wish that someone would get ahold of the tooling for those hideous Matchbox era tyres, and demolish them. The new releases of the '55 Chevy drop top and the '57 [?] T-Bird - and the other 1/16 scale AMT fifties kits - were cursed with those stupid treads. But, at least now-a-days, the aftermarket offers nice replacements for those trash can candidates.

[Plowboy]

1 hour ago, 1972coronet said:

I remember that kit review, but couldn't recall its author - I thought it was by Tim Boyd, but wasn't sure.

The proposition that the AMT'34 exhibited factory stock proportions, at least cab wise, catalysed me 17 year old mind. 
I held off from buying a copy for the simple fact that I despised AMT's godawful Good Year Rallye GT "snow tyres"; and certainly, the atrocious box art didn't sweeten the deal. 
I didn't have any 'parts box' tyres at the time because 99% of my modelling supplies and kits were destroyed during the 1987 Whittier Earthquake.
____________ _________________ _______________________ ___________________________ ___________________________ _______________________________ __________________ ____________________________

Oh, how I wish that someone would get ahold of the tooling for those hideous Matchbox era tyres, and demolish them. The new releases of the '55 Chevy drop top and the '57 [?] T-Bird - and the other 1/16 scale AMT fifties kits - were cursed with those stupid treads. But, at least now-a-days, the aftermarket offers nice replacements for those trash can candidates.

I remember those tires. But, none of the variants of the '34 came with them.